The Sun Will Never Set On The British Empire.

[mark45y]

In another thread Geriatrickid posted a response to something I wrote about minding one's own business and not trying to impose a foreign culture on Thais (ethnocentrism). I don't agree with him but his response was very well written and deserves to be read. So with everyones permission I will quote it here.

“1. I am not wrong. Character and class is common to all cultures. And by class, I am not talking about driving a big car and wearing gold. One can be destitute and still have class and be able to differentiate between right and wrong. Either you have it or you don't.

2. I don't know about the missionary thing, but perhaps my rigidity on some issues is because I understand what happens when one goes "jungle".

3. I do get it. The "morals" you denigrate are a product of the code of conduct I am obliged to follow. Some of my Thai friends follow an even stricter code of conduct. I suppose if I was running a beer bar selling women to junketeers I would have a different outlook. My employment conditions run 7 pages. The privacy convention runs 10 pages.

4. The British Empire is not gone. It lives on in its legacy of government, laws, education and sense of justice. The sun will never set on the British Empire as long as the belief as parliamentary democracy, equitable laws and fairness exist. England may suffer some rot, but here are places in this world where all that was good about England live on. One can go to Barbados and find that the locals speak a higher quality of English than the English, where the government tries to do the right thing and where manners still exist. I shall no put on my pith helmet and call for my batboy to fetch the carriage and go for a tour of the estate. (Translation: Put on the crappy Chinese made helmet, mooch a lift from my friend and drive through traffic.)”

[mark45y]

I disagree with so many things he said it would have been ungainly to put them all in one post so I wrote a second one.

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire. As a child my family had a vacation home in Nassau when the Brits were still running the place. Everything was perfect (except the natives feelings about being slaves). The food was great, beer was great, no crime, lots of women, beautiful beaches. You could drink on the street, beer was available from little square holes. As one was walking in Nassau town you put a dollar in these little square holes and out popped a beer.

Hong Kong was great too. No crime, lots of girls, great food.

I visited Hong Kong and the Bahamas many times when under British rule. Only once after the Brits and I never went back.

What happened to the British Empire? What was the beginning of the end? Was it the battle of Singapore? Are the Thais responsible?

A large portion of the Japanese troops that defeated Singapore landed unopposed in Thailand (and then marched to Singapore). Only 50,000 Japanese defeated a vastly larger British contingent. The Thais had an army of 50,000 they could have easily opposed and perhaps even defeated the Japanese, after all they did defeat a large French force only the year before. Was it the attitude of the British officers that caused the 7000 Aussie troops to desert? Maybe desertion is not the right word, maybe they just got angry and left.

Singapore, and India and WWII. All led to the end of the Empire.

But the British Empire is not dead in the mind of many.

Thai culture in a large part is defined by Geriatrickid as “Jungle” morals.

It is obvious to him that he is different and superior to Jungle morals and ethics.

Thai morals of selling ones kin to fund the family farm I believe would be looked down upon by the British Empire.

Eskimos used to have a reputation of being very sexually promiscuous. If you visited an Eskimo family you would be offered one or more women to spend the night with even if those women were married. See, Eskimos had a limited gene pool. They existed in very small family groups to hunt. If they did not get other genes into the family, the family would look inbred and not be healthy. The first missionaries to Eskimo land did not understand this and insisted the wives not sleep with every tom, dick and harry who visited causing irreparable harm to the culture. This is an example of what Geriatrickid would define as Jungle morals.

[Kwasaki]

looks like your on your own.

[Englander]

Think link proves the Empire is well and truly dead and buried.

http://maps.google.com/maps?cbll=55.037348,-1.518033&layer=c&cbp=13,256.67,,0,-2.1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newcastle+Upon+Tyne+NE1,+United+Kingdom&ll=55.037348,-1.518033&spn=0.002662,0.006899&z=17&panoid=ZTMcBWQ9o7tSYKiNAnDS1A

[Scully]

looks like your on your own.

I think Mr Mark needs to take a trip back to Britain to finally realise its not just the Empire that is ruined.

[TheWalkingMan]

I think a better topic would be, "The Sun Will Never Set On A Chinese Restaurant."

That would be more interesting as I would imagine that 99%+ of the readers here could give a recommendation either in Thailand or around the world.

Was that off topic?

[phetaroi]

To mark45y:

YAWN!

[d2g]

I think a better topic would be, "The Sun Will Never Set On A Chinese Restaurant."

That would be more interesting as I would imagine that 99%+ of the readers here could give a recommendation either in Thailand or around the world.

Was that off topic?

The sun will never set on the British empire because God would not trust an Englishman in the dark

[StreetCowboy]

I suppose you have to compare the prosperity of our progeny with that of our peers of a similar time.

If you compare the prosperity of the former British, Spanish, French and Portuguese colonies in the Americas I think the differerences present us in a good light. Similarly in the African continent. Or comparing Malaysia with Indonesia. Or Hong KOng with Macau.

I don't think that GK was necessarily equating 'going native' with jungle morals

- momentary humourous digression to an old joke set in a Club in London... anyway, the punch line is "A female monkey of course - nothing funny about old Smithers!" -

I think what he was denigrating was the incidence of expats here effectively abandoning their own established code of conduct without adopting that of the host country - effectively abandoning any moral code based on respect for others, regardless of whether that be the more-or-less puritanical / liberal / whatever Western christian-derived moral set, or the feudal / hierarchical standards of this country.

SC

[mark45y]

Geriatrickid expressed himself so clearly that I didn't want his post lost in the shuffle.

He painted such a clear picture of a stereotype of the colonial cast on foreign shores trying to bring order and morality to the troubled and morally challenged natives.

He clearly sees the drunken ex pats in the same light as the missionaries saw the drunken sailors in the South Seas and the other paradises that all saw the same conflict between the locals and the missionaries.

There have been books written and movies made that are classics expressing the same conflicts.

The last civilized man standing from the dying empire.

He doesn't see it. He doesn't get it.

He has memories of the British Empire as a civilizing force when in fact it was a terrible corrupt regime.

From the East India company or the Hudson bay company or all the other commercial exploitive enterprises designed to extract labor and resources from helpless countries to feed and enrich the British Isles.

He has mixed up the good and bad guys by a lack of knowledge or ignorance or sticking his head in the sand. But he has done so eloquently.

I appreciate the fact that he explains his position and does not just condemn out of hand.

[JohnLeech]

A large portion of the Japanese troops that defeated Singapore landed unopposed in Thailand (and then marched to Singapore). Only 50,000 Japanese defeated a vastly larger British contingent. The Thais had an army of 50,000 they could have easily opposed and perhaps even defeated the Japanese, after all they did defeat a large French force only the year before. Was it the attitude of the British officers that caused the 7000 Aussie troops to desert? Maybe desertion is not the right word, maybe they just got angry and left.

Whatever version of the Fall of Singapore you have based this on (if any) is incorrect.

According to the Japanese commander they had around 30,000 ground troops, who were faced by 90,000 British, Indian and Australian troops. While the Japanese intelligence was excellent and their troops well led tactically, British intelligence was virtually non-existent and the Commonwealth troops were appalingly badly led tactically - while the bravery of the commanders was not in question, they used WWI static tactics against a highly mobile enemy, deploying their troops in penny-packets along a perimeter that was far too long to be adequately defended and which left gaping holes through which the Japanese could penetrate virtually unopposed.

Although a few British and Austalian troops deserted, there is no recognised record of mass desertion by Australian troops on that scale (nearly half the 15,200 Australian troops in Singapore). 7,000 managed to leave on the many Australian Navy ships that were there, most of wom were wounded, but this was not desertion. Due mainly to the troop deployment effective command and communications had broken down, and as the defenders were by-passed by the Japanese they had the choice of either remaining in position (with no enemy to fight as the Japanese were already in front of them) or making for the port and getting on the waiting ships. The Australian commander, General Gordon Bennett, managed to escape very controversially with two of his staff officers and this has occasionally been taken out of context.

The only mass desertions in Singapore were by the Indian troops, particularly the Sikhs, led by Subhas Candra Bose (President of the Inian National Congress in 1937 and 1939, and on a level with Gandhi and Nehru) who formed the core of the Indian National Army from Indian troops who deserted in Singapore and, later, captured Indian POWs. This contrasts strongly with the performance of the Indian Army elsewhere, especially by the Sikhs and Rajputs, and it is probably this more than anything else that marks the loss of face and respect the British had had and the beginning of the end of the Empire.

[JohnLeech]

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire

Why, when you think that "it was a terrible corrupt regime ........ designed to extract labor and resources from helpless countries to feed and enrich the British Isles"?

I am forced to agree with your assessment, however I also think that the legacy of the Empire to some of its colonies has been considerable in spite of that. On the other hand how the empire ended rather than how it was run has proved to be an unmitigated disaster in most cases, with arbitrary boundaries and divisions made regardless of ethnic, religious and tribal boundaries which has led to civil wars that are still going on sixty years later.

[JohnLeech]

My employment conditions run 7 pages. The privacy convention runs 10 pages.

Aaah ............ The Stig!

[StreetCowboy]

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire

Why, when you think that "it was a terrible corrupt regime ........ designed to extract labor and resources from helpless countries to feed and enrich the British Isles"?

I am forced to agree with your assessment, however I also think that the legacy of the Empire to some of its colonies has been considerable in spite of that. On the other hand how the empire ended rather than how it was run has proved to be an unmitigated disaster in most cases, with arbitrary boundaries and divisions made regardless of ethnic, religious and tribal boundaries which has led to civil wars that are still going on sixty years later.

I don't think that the arbitrary boundaries were to blame for that - it was the failure of the British to stamp out any local culture, failure to carry out proper ethnic cleansing, that would eliminate the possibility of ancient conflicts recurring. But then, I'm not sure that any of the other powers did any better at obliterating ancient divisions. The conflicts were there regardless of where the boundaries might lie. And I'm not sure that preventing future conflicts would justify such actions.

The arbitrary boundaries make these civil wars rather than tribal conflicts, but regardless of the title applied, the conflict remains the same. Had the boundaries been drawn differently, these conflicts would have been international wars, but the conflict would have remained the same.

SC

[Beetlejuice]

Well Mark, you sound very much like me, totally disgruntled with today’s modern society.

I hate to say this, but it`s all long gone and will never return. The old values and ways of true British culture has been thrown into the trashcan of history and it`s beyond any restoration.

All we have left is our sweet memories and reminisces, just something we have to accept whether we like it or not. The world has changed but not for the better IMOP.

[StreetCowboy]

Well Mark, you sound very much like me, totally disgruntled with today's modern society.

I hate to say this, but it`s all long gone and will never return. The old values and ways of true British culture has been thrown into the trashcan of history and it`s beyond any restoration.

All we have left is our sweet memories and reminisces, just something we have to accept whether we like it or not. The world has changed but not for the better IMOP.

We could always live in denial.

It's people like us that have made Britain the country that it is today, and if we're not happy with it, then that is our fault, and no-one else's. What did we do to prevent the decline? Personally, I think that the changes are less than we at first perceive... it was always a nation of stupid and brutish people (most nations are), but now, that is published in the press (and the lobotomy-box and the internet) and we are more aware of it. All the faults that I see in the country, when I go back, are due to its success, rather than its failure - problems of prosperity and freedom of choice.

As a "Hi-So Engineer" - oh, that still makes me laugh! I am happier here, but given the choice of where I would choose to grow up in proletarian poverty, it would certainly not be Thailand.

SC

[enerzne]

I disagree with so many things he said it would have been ungainly to put them all in one post so I wrote a second one.

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire. As a child my family had a vacation home in Nassau when the Brits were still running the place. Everything was perfect (except the natives feelings about being slaves). The food was great, beer was great, no crime, lots of women, beautiful beaches. You could drink on the street, beer was available from little square holes. As one was walking in Nassau town you put a dollar in these little square holes and out popped a beer.

Hong Kong was great too. No crime, lots of girls, great food.

I visited Hong Kong and the Bahamas many times when under British rule. Only once after the Brits and I never went back.

What happened to the British Empire? What was the beginning of the end? Was it the battle of Singapore? Are the Thais responsible?

I just wonder, why you do not stay in England? To me this is the leftover of the 'British Empire'.

Time has gone on. You?

[mark45y]

A large portion of the Japanese troops that defeated Singapore landed unopposed in Thailand (and then marched to Singapore). Only 50,000 Japanese defeated a vastly larger British contingent. The Thais had an army of 50,000 they could have easily opposed and perhaps even defeated the Japanese, after all they did defeat a large French force only the year before. Was it the attitude of the British officers that caused the 7000 Aussie troops to desert? Maybe desertion is not the right word, maybe they just got angry and left.

Whatever version of the Fall of Singapore you have based this on (if any) is incorrect.

According to the Japanese commander they had around 30,000 ground troops, who were faced by 90,000 British, Indian and Australian troops. While the Japanese intelligence was excellent and their troops well led tactically, British intelligence was virtually non-existent and the Commonwealth troops were appalingly badly led tactically - while the bravery of the commanders was not in question, they used WWI static tactics against a highly mobile enemy, deploying their troops in penny-packets along a perimeter that was far too long to be adequately defended and which left gaping holes through which the Japanese could penetrate virtually unopposed.

Although a few British and Austalian troops deserted, there is no recognised record of mass desertion by Australian troops on that scale (nearly half the 15,200 Australian troops in Singapore). 7,000 managed to leave on the many Australian Navy ships that were there, most of wom were wounded, but this was not desertion. Due mainly to the troop deployment effective command and communications had broken down, and as the defenders were by-passed by the Japanese they had the choice of either remaining in position (with no enemy to fight as the Japanese were already in front of them) or making for the port and getting on the waiting ships. The Australian commander, General Gordon Bennett, managed to escape very controversially with two of his staff officers and this has occasionally been taken out of context.

The only mass desertions in Singapore were by the Indian troops, particularly the Sikhs, led by Subhas Candra Bose (President of the Inian National Congress in 1937 and 1939, and on a level with Gandhi and Nehru) who formed the core of the Indian National Army from Indian troops who deserted in Singapore and, later, captured Indian POWs. This contrasts strongly with the performance of the Indian Army elsewhere, especially by the Sikhs and Rajputs, and it is probably this more than anything else that marks the loss of face and respect the British had had and the beginning of the end of the Empire.

The information about Australian troops at singapore comes from “Singapore: The Pregnable Fortress.” You can hardly blame them though General Bennett and two of his staff officers told the troops to stay and they left and made it back to Australia.

My troop estimates of the Japanese army were based on the number of troops from the 5th and 8th divisions and support troops that landed on December 8th, 1941 at Singora, Patani and Kota Bharu. The Kokoda historical society says 65,000 Japanese troops.

For further reading try:

» Cover-ups and the Singapore Traitor Affair - Peter Elphick's oral paper presented at the Fall of Singapore 60th Anniversary Conference.

» This Inglorious Business from Singapore: The Pregnable Fortress by Peter Elphick examines historical documents about Australian deserters and their role in the fall of Singapore

» Wavell Report - This report states that "for the fall of Singapore itself, the Australians are held responsible". (PDF Document)

» Scapegoats for the Bloody Empire - Lynette Silver responds to Peter Elphick's charges of Australian desertion.

» Interview with Roydon Cornford whom Elphick named as a deserter in his book. (RealVideo)

[StreetCowboy]

I disagree with so many things he said it would have been ungainly to put them all in one post so I wrote a second one.

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire. As a child my family had a vacation home in Nassau when the Brits were still running the place. Everything was perfect (except the natives feelings about being slaves). The food was great, beer was great, no crime, lots of women, beautiful beaches. You could drink on the street, beer was available from little square holes. As one was walking in Nassau town you put a dollar in these little square holes and out popped a beer.

Hong Kong was great too. No crime, lots of girls, great food.

I visited Hong Kong and the Bahamas many times when under British rule. Only once after the Brits and I never went back.

What happened to the British Empire? What was the beginning of the end? Was it the battle of Singapore? Are the Thais responsible?

I just wonder, why you do not stay in England? To me this is the leftover of the 'British Empire'.

Time has gone on. You?

I think he's a colonial - a plantationer.

Funnily enough, by current measures, the richest in the empire at the time of their UDI

SC

[StreetCowboy]

Maybe this will make you laugh....

I put it to you that the Thatcher government, and particulatrly Chris Patten, managed to avoid a tremendous loss of face for the Chinese, through their intransigent negotiating stance, thus allowing HK to maintain their common law and free market, despite these being anathema on the mainland, which was clearly in the best interests of the prosperity of China, as it had been for the previous several decades.

SC

[mark45y]

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire

Why, when you think that "it was a terrible corrupt regime ........ designed to extract labor and resources from helpless countries to feed and enrich the British Isles"?

I am forced to agree with your assessment, however I also think that the legacy of the Empire to some of its colonies has been considerable in spite of that. On the other hand how the empire ended rather than how it was run has proved to be an unmitigated disaster in most cases, with arbitrary boundaries and divisions made regardless of ethnic, religious and tribal boundaries which has led to civil wars that are still going on sixty years later.

My grandmother kept the red coat that her great grandfather (I think only one great but it has been a while since I figured the exact date) at the battle of Quebec. My grandfather was an IRA Irishman from the old country. I got two history lessons every Sunday. One in the basement with gramps and the other in the kitchen with grandmother. Needless to say there were many conflicts of fact. I liked my grandfather better but grandmother was one of the best cooks I have ever met. I gave equal weight to both sides.

[mark45y]

I disagree with so many things he said it would have been ungainly to put them all in one post so I wrote a second one.

I too am saddened by the end of the British Empire. As a child my family had a vacation home in Nassau when the Brits were still running the place. Everything was perfect (except the natives feelings about being slaves). The food was great, beer was great, no crime, lots of women, beautiful beaches. You could drink on the street, beer was available from little square holes. As one was walking in Nassau town you put a dollar in these little square holes and out popped a beer.

Hong Kong was great too. No crime, lots of girls, great food.

I visited Hong Kong and the Bahamas many times when under British rule. Only once after the Brits and I never went back.

What happened to the British Empire? What was the beginning of the end? Was it the battle of Singapore? Are the Thais responsible?

I just wonder, why you do not stay in England? To me this is the leftover of the 'British Empire'.

Time has gone on. You?

I live in Thailand because of the honesty/consistency of the country. Everybody lies, everybody is corrupt and everybody knows it.

Seems refreshing after reading the news of the west.

[StreetCowboy]

I suppose one of the problems we face in discussions such as this is that synonyms have such different interpretationsfor example "terrible corrupt" and "relatively liberal and enlightened".If a regime is not 'terrible' then it is scarcely a regime at all, more like a consensual - I can't think of a suitable word. Every regime is corrupt. Some would argue that they are corrupt in only the smallest and most obscure detail. Some are quite clearly more corrupt than others. So terrible and corrupt are not suitable discriminators for a regime, unless we set clear thresholds onthe level of terror and corruption that we are willing to countenance.Luckily,being British, these are quantifications that are small enough that I have never considered to assess them, except in interpreting the hubris of the tabloid pressSC

[StreetCowboy]

8>< snip nested quotes deleted ><8

I just wonder, why you do not stay in England? To me this is the leftover of the 'British Empire'.

Time has gone on. You?

As a British nationalist of the first order, why would anyone choose to live in England, when there are such more attractive places to live?

I suppose the Engish associate with their Orange neighbour across the water in preference to their countrymen, but we've never had an English king, and its a long time since you did, either.

SC

I know many of my countrymen differ in our views of this topic, but I still maintain that it is our empire, and too great a legacy to leave to the English.

[enerzne]

I live in Thailand because of the honesty/consistency of the country. Everybody lies, everybody is corrupt and everybody knows it.

Seems refreshing after reading the news of the west.

You really mean to say 'everybody'?

If this is your experience then i pity you. It makes me feel bad, as I meet a lot of honest people here.

I hope tomorrow you will meet at least one person, that proofs you wrong.

[Beetlejuice]

Well Mark, you sound very much like me, totally disgruntled with today's modern society.

I hate to say this, but it`s all long gone and will never return. The old values and ways of true British culture has been thrown into the trashcan of history and it`s beyond any restoration.

All we have left is our sweet memories and reminisces, just something we have to accept whether we like it or not. The world has changed but not for the better IMOP.

We could always live in denial.

It's people like us that have made Britain the country that it is today, and if we're not happy with it, then that is our fault, and no-one else's. What did we do to prevent the decline? Personally, I think that the changes are less than we at first perceive... it was always a nation of stupid and brutish people (most nations are), but now, that is published in the press (and the lobotomy-box and the internet) and we are more aware of it. All the faults that I see in the country, when I go back, are due to its success, rather than its failure - problems of prosperity and freedom of choice.

As a "Hi-So Engineer" - oh, that still makes me laugh! I am happier here, but given the choice of where I would choose to grow up in proletarian poverty, it would certainly not be Thailand.

SC

Good post Streetcowboy a lot of sense in that.

Agree with most of what you say, but I don’t think we are all entirely to blame for the decline. I consider myself as part of the old school, which have fallen very much into a small minority, therefore not having any power or influence over the way British society has transformed during the last few decades.

Never did believe in the total permissive society. In some aspects forms of despotism can be a good thing, in ways of discipline, respect and enforcing law and order. Perhaps this is why I prefer the Thai way of life compared to the UK. Like Mark, all I have left are my views and these don’t carry much clout these days.

Some days ago a racist on one of the threads accused me of being a liberal, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I am a staunch conservative and still believe in the old values, which sadly we are now a dying breed.

[StreetCowboy]

I live in Thailand because of the honesty/consistency of the country. Everybody lies, everybody is corrupt and everybody knows it.

Seems refreshing after reading the news of the west.

You really mean to say 'everybody'?

If this is your experience then i pity you. It makes me feel bad, as I meet a lot of honest people here.

I hope tomorrow you will meet at least one person, that proofs you wrong.

To be honest, I have revised my view on honesty in the last ten years or so... from my perspective, more with respect to the questions I ask - why ask questions that people are going to lie to? It does not increase your knowledge, it makes them feel bad - and therefore dislike you; so why not reconsider the question, and decide on the course of action that you would take if you never asked the question. Which you should not - because if the correct answer is not true, how will you know if you got the correct answer, or the true answer?

SC

[geriatrickid]

My original comments were made tongue in cheek and most people understood. I suppose that is an example of the British influence: An ability to offer a bit of humour that requires some thinking. The OP is approaching the concept of empire in terms of power and military might, but I am thinking in terms of legacy. The Romans left behind roads and aquaducts and other civil engineering feats that served as the foundation for development. The Indians left an imprint of their culture in southeast asia and we see it in the languages and writing here in Thailand.

The sun never set on the British Empire because it evolved. Instead of military might it beat those swords into ploughshares to give birth to the Commonwealth. If one looks at all of its members, there is a member wherever the sun is still present.

There are a great many things wrong with the UK, but within its body still beats the heart of an honourable and brave nation. The faults mentioned, are the byproduct of generosity and compassion. Yes, sometimes the welfare benefits go to far, but better that than to have tens of millions of people without access to basic medical care as is the case in the USA and Thailand. I will gladly take the legacy of a boisterous parliament than the nasty corruption plagued battles between lobbyists that characterize the US Congrees, or the dysfunctional italian and Israeli adherence to proportional seating or the corruption plagued Thai approach. The independence and impartiality of the judiciary is protected in diverse nations such as Trinidad & Tobago, Australia and Canada because of the inherited British concepts. True, there are nations, including members of the Commonwealth, that chose another route, but they have paid the price. India for all of its weaknesses took many of the British principles and adapted them for India and that is seen in the vibrant press which is for all intents and purposes free. India offers a functioning democracy. Yes it has problems at election time, but it is the largest democracy in the world and that's certainly better than the dictatorship of China. Pakistan turned its back on the values of the British and it is one screwed up pathetic nation.

And when it comes time to stand up for justice and freedom, the UK still has the ability to do so. The liberation of the Falklands is a sterling example. Against terrible odds, and in difficult conditions the courage and bravery of HM defense forces liberated an island invaded by faciast thugs. The UK didn't just liberate the Falklands, they also enabled the return of elections in Argentina. The Argentinians should be giving thanks for that.

As for the reference to going jungle, it is not a condescending term in respect to the Thais. Rather it is a reference to the foreigners that lose all common sense and think that if the wai at the service staff that this somehow makes them Thai. If I was back in the Borneo jungle, I would definitely go jungle and adapt to the local environment. However, when I am in Patong, going jungle basically would be the kiss of death since it would mean drinking in excess and screwing every whore on Bangla. And yes, the terms and conditions of my employment contract has clauses that intrude on my personal life including a page on conflicts of interest and gifts. Any entertainment expenses must now be accompanied by a detailed receipt that shows what was consumed. Welcome to the world of transparency and corporate governance.

[StreetCowboy]

My apologies for the pearls of strong drink; my recolllection of the Falklands War is thus...bearing in mind that I was at that time a newspaper boy obliged to fick through to page three,,,,

Now the British are lucky to have one friend in SOuth Amerca, thugh perhaps they speak Spanish in preference; but a penchant for rugby and polo and an acquaintance closer than most; now when times become dire, and we need to raise ire, well who better than our closest neighbours.... and I fear it served us both best from political views to proceeed as it turned out we must.

But its always been a game I've been delighted to watch, and - in the absence of plain navy blue - I've been happy to follow azure and white - even at the expense of our southern compatriots!

[IanForbes]

Interesting discussion and you learn something new every day. My experience with people in general tells me the end of the British Empire was caused by what can be summed up in one word... "arrognance". It is the same thing that is causing the fall of the so called American Empire. The leaders are too arrogant to believe they are doing anything wrong.