Luxury Cruise Sailing

A fantastic beautiful day here today; blue skies and blue-green seas with a fine nautical wind making whitecaps, and as I sat outside my cave a small cruise ship passed by. I have seen it so often in the past few months and it is always somewhere on my shipping map somewhere, tucked away in a small and otherwise inaccessible bay or beach or river around Tasmania's very indented coast. It is the Coral Discoverer.

We have some leviathans visiting our port but who wants to travel in a floating city when a small, intimate, well appointed ship with just a modest passenger complement can do?

Launched in 2005, Coral Discoverer set a new benchmark standard for small ship cruising in Australia.  The bar gets set a lot with different sorts of ships, such as the huge five masted sailing ship I showed a while ago. Refurbished in November 2016, she continues to raise the bar to new levels of sophistication in expedition cruising in the Southern Hemisphere.

And it has a few quite unique attractions. 

The 1800-tonne Coral Discoverer is the grand vision of Coral Expeditions, pioneers in expedition and adventure cruises around Australia, Papua New Guinea and South East Asia. Her shallow draught and manoeuvrability allow her to go where larger vessels cannot. 

Her tender vessel, Xplorer, can seat all 72 passengers for excursions to beaches and rivers. Coral Discoverer is equipped with latest technology active stabilisers to ensure comfortable cruising in open waters and is fitted with modern safety and navigation equipment and wireless internet facilities.

The Bridge is open to passengers who can see what goes on.

The small, compact but luxurious ship was built to the exacting international SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) standards and specifications in Cairns, Australia, with one aim in mind; to create the ultimate small ship cruising experience. 

Australian flagged, and staffed entirely by an Australian and New Zealand crew, the experience aboard Coral Discoverer is unique.

It is an expedition cruise ship operating in Australia and Oceania. With a homeport of Cairns, Tropical North Queensland, the 72 passenger Coral Discoverer is fully registered under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) for worldwide operation. 

On launch in 2005 Coral Discoverer became the first Australian flagged, owned and staffed passenger ship to attain full SOLAS compliance in over 50 years.

There are three vessels in the Coral Expeditions fleet, Coral Discoverer operating alongside Coral Expeditions I and Coral Expeditions II.

Coral Discoverer has four passenger decks, containing 36 staterooms, an open seat dining room and al fresco dining deck, lounge and lecture lounge, two cocktail bars and a sun deck. Coral Discoverer travels with a range of excursion tenders including inflatable zodiacs, glass bottom boat, kayaks and the 'Xplorer' excursion tender.

In June 2015 the ship was renamed Coral Discoverer having has two names previously.

Class and type: Cruise ship

Tonnage: 1,838 GT

Length: 63 m (206 ft 8 in)

Beam: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)

Draught: 3 metres

Draft: 3 m (9 ft 10 in)

Decks: 4

Speed: 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph)

Capacity: 72 passengers

Crew: Up to 25, all Australian and New Zealand staff

Name: Coral Discoverer (2015–)


Oceanic Discoverer (2006–2015)
Oceanic Princess (2005–2006)


Homeport: Cairns, Tropical North Queensland.

I do not have any great aspiration to spend time at sea and were I to have a 'cruise' at all it would be on something like this. Not too many fellow passengers to get up one's nose.  No raucus disco and rahrah noises from drunken youngsters. One might even go in to dinner in flip-flops.

I am a landlubber and love the air. Planes are my first 'thing'. But I have always had the sea in my blood. Englishman, you see. I delight in seeing the water. 

Perfect to watch with a pint at hand.

Join me.

Pax.

Those Places Trump calls S**t*o*es

What a furore over the reported word used by The Donald. It is as though no other President ever used a rude word. It is though those so scandalised never ever used words as 'fruity' or even filthy in their entire lives. It is taking hypocricy to new levels, after that of last week's Holywood-hypocri-fest. And they have overlooked asking whether his assessment, though as terse as I can be on a bad day, was correct. Several countries seem to have taken it as a personal insult. There are bound to be repercussions.... perhaps they will refuse any more foreign aid.  

Don't worry about the rubbish. It will wash away.

What they are unlikely to do is cease exporting their shyte.

And by the Lord Harry aren't they doing a roaring trade, dumping it wherever they can ?

You may have noted the furore that breaks every now and then by our friendly neighbourhood Greens who, as we know, think globally. They whine about the billions of tons of garbage in the seas: the birds and fish that die from ingested flotsam dumped into the sea by wicked capitalists and sundry western seaside holiday-makers. Well it seems that those shy*eh*le countries are the ones who are putting it there and not Mr Trump's supporters.

It had been explained to us in the Tavern a while back but I didn't get around to telling. Shivali Best was back again to refresh our memories. Not that the Donald will be let off the fish-hook of course.

Shocking report reveals that 95% of plastic polluting the world's oceans comes from just TEN rivers

• Scientists analysed data on plastic from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers

• Their results showed that 10 rivers account for the majority of plastic 

• Eight of these are in Asia, including the Yangtze and Indus rivers

• Targeting these rivers could halve the amount of plastic waste, experts predict  

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html

Up to 95 per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research.

The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste.

About five trillion pounds is floating in the sea, and targeting the major sources - such as the Yangtze and the Ganges - could almost halve it, scientists claim.

And which ten are fingered? 

THE 10 MOST POLLUTING RIVERS

Yangtze East China Sea Asia

Indus Arabian Sea Asia

Yellow River Yellow Sea Asia

Hai He Yellow Sea Asia

Nile Mediterranean Africa

Ganges Bay of Bengal Asia

Pearl River South China Sea Asia

Amur Sea of Okhotsk Asia

Niger Gulf of Guinea Africa

Mekong South China Sea Asia 

The Thames, the Mississippi and the Murray-Darling do not rate, it seems.  But they missed Karachi.

Massive amounts of plastic bits that imperil aquatic life are washing into the oceans and even the most pristine waters.

But how it all gets there from inland cities has not been fully understood.

Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste.

The team calculated halving plastic pollution in these waterways could potentially reduce the total contribution by all rivers by 45 per cent.

Dr Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist at Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany, said: 'A substantial fraction of marine plastic debris originates from land-based sources and rivers potentially act as a major transport pathway for all sizes of plastic debris.'

Can't blame the Donald. The good Dr is a German. An EU man. I hope the Don takes note though.

His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size.

They said microplastics in particular can damage the health of marine life but cleaning it all up would be impossible. However stemming the tide could help reduce the potential harm.

Dr Schmidt said to do this, researchers need a better understanding of how plastic makes its way into the oceans in the first place.

THERE WILL BE MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH IN THE SEA BY 2050 

By the Lord Harry. Do they think so? Really? 

The amount of plastic rubbish in the world's oceans will outweigh fish by 2050 unless the world takes drastic action to further recycle, a report released in 2016 revealed.

But.... but.... there will be far more sea too, surely. Al Gore said so. 

Researchers warned eight million tonnes of plastics currently find their way into the ocean every year - the equivalent of one truckload every minute.

At current rates, this will worsen to four truckloads per minute in 2050 and outstrip native life to become the largest mass inhabiting the oceans.

Weeeerrrre aaalll doooomed.

Again. 

Unless we kick shytehole butt.

An overwhelming 95 per cent of plastic packaging - worth £65 - £92billion - is lost to the economy after a single use, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report stated.

And available research estimates that there are more than 150 million tonnes of plastics in the ocean today.

Rivers which flow from inland areas to the seas are major transporters of plastic debris but the concentration patterns aren't well known.

The findings could help fill in this knowledge gap.

Dr Schmidt pooled data from dozens of research articles and calculated the amount in rivers was linked to the 'mismanagement of plastic waste in their watersheds.'

He said: 'The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88-95 per cent of the global load into the sea.'

The study follows a recent report that pointed the finger at China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam for spewing out most of the plastic waste that enters the seas.

The Yangtze has been estimated in previous research to dump some 727 million pounds of plastic into the sea each year. 

The Ganges River in India is responsible for even more - about 1.2 billion pounds.

A combination of the Xi, Dong and Zhujiang Rivers (233 million lbs per year) in China as well as four Indonesian rivers: 

the Brantas (85 million lbs annually), 

Solo (71 million pounds per year), 

Serayu (37 million lbs per year) and 

Progo (28 million lbs per year), are all large contributors.

Previous research has also suggested two-thirds of plastic comes from the 20 most contaminated rivers. But Dr Schmidt reckons this can be narrowed down even further.

He said: 'The rivers with the highest estimated plastic loads are characterised by high population - for instance the Yangtze with over half a billion people.

'These rivers are also in countries with a high rate of mismanaged plastic waste (MMPW) production per capita as a result of a not fully implemented municipal waste management including waste collection, dumping and recycling.

Or, as the Donald says, the Sh*th*le countries. Well, some of them. 

OUR SHOCKING PLASTIC ADDICTION 

• One million plastic bottles are  sold every minute

• 480 billion plastic bottles were sold in 2016

• 538 billion plastic bottles will be thrown away every year by 2021

• Fewer than half of plastic bottles are recycled

• Up to 13 million tonnes of plastic enter the sea every year 

Ours? And yet, most of the rubbish is from non-western countries. 

'The data shows large rivers are particular efficient in transporting plastic debris. Large rivers like the Yangtze transport a higher fraction of the MMPW that is generated in their catchments than smaller rivers.

'These three factors lead to the estimated concentration of most of the plastic load to large rivers with a large population living in their catchment.

'Countries with high MMPW generation such as China or India could greatly reduce the plastic pollution of rivers by implementing proper waste management.

'In industrial countries, although they have a well developed waste management infrastrcuture, one way for plastic waste entering the environment is littering.'

His team analysed data on debris from 79 sampling sites along 57 rivers - both microplastic particles (pictured) measuring less than 5 mm and macroplastic above this size

Pollution costs more than £6 billion ($7.9 billion) in damage to marine ecosystems and kills an estimated one million sea birds, 100,000 sea mammals and untold numbers of fish.

Dr Schmidt said: 'Pollution of the marine environment with plastic debris is widely recognised and is of increasing ecological concern because of the chemical persistence of plastics and their mechanical fragmentation to so-called microplastics which can be ingested by even small organisms such as zooplankton.

'Beyond the long recognised occurrence of plastic debris in the marine environment plastic debris has been more recently detected in freshwater environments and can be found even in pristine, remote locations.'

WHO DUMPS THE MOST PLASTIC?

So much plastic is dumped into the sea each year that it would fill five carrier bags for every foot of coastline on the planet, scientists have warned. 

More than half of the plastic waste that flows into the oceans comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka. 

The only industrialized western country on the list of top 20 plastic polluters is the United States at No. 20. 

The U.S. and Europe are not mismanaging their collected waste, so the plastic trash coming from those countries is due to litter, researchers said.

While China is responsible for 2.4 million tons of plastic that makes its way into the ocean, nearly 28 percent of the world total, the United States contributes just 77,000 tons, which is less than one percent, according to the study published in the journal Science.

He added: 'The high fraction of a few river catchments contributing the vast majority of the total load implies that potential mitigation measures would be highly efficient when applied in the high-load rivers.

'Reducing plastic loads by 50 per cent in the 10 top-ranked rivers would reduce the total river-based load to the sea by 45 per cent.

'Our analysis reveals that plastic loads of large rivers disproportionately increase in relationship to the increase of plastic debris available for transport.'

And increases by the new, UN Disapproved, Shi*ho*e factor. 

Still, it is unlikely to take up a day at the UN, unlike the week of condemnations of the Donald that we might look forward to. 

By the way, should you want to know a little more about previous American President's linguistic adventures, try this.....

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/a-brief-history-of-presidential-profanity-20121210

Drink up and let me wash that tankard out for you.

Pax

Red Carpet Hypocricy

If you are going to do something, do it well. And you can always rely on a really good show from big-bucks Hollywood which loves a parade on the red carpet. Were a hollywood star to have an MRI of her/his head, it would glitter with all the tinsel in there where a brain should be. Their hearts are in a bad way too.  They pump cant. But we cannot wholly blame them: we need to recognise the talented Media for spreading the red carpet over all the shyte they sweep underneath.  Perhaps an award night.

So we have been treated to the grandest show of narcissistic hypocricy that only a fetid mob of minds could conjour, and fortunately the Tavern saw quite a few voices raised to jeer the cheers.  Melanie Phillips and Matt Walsh were joined by Bill Donahue, for singling out amongst the raucus offerings as I pulled the pints.

John Namnik "Look at my face, you disgusting pervert"!

The subject was the 'Golden Globes', which I was quickly assured were not the lifted and separated superstructures the ladies were thrusting at all and sundry.

Matt had only dropped a short comment to set the globes rolling.....

An actress showed up on the Golden Globes red carpet last night wearing a sweatshirt with the words "Poverty is Sexist" emblazoned across it. 

The sweatshirt costs $380. 

It was a perfect microcosm of the entire night, and the film industry as a whole: vapid, ridiculous, clueless, meaningless, self-serving, self-righteous, self-defeating, hypocritical, phony.

Oprah Winfrey took a break from smooching Harvey Weinstein to deliver a rousing speech about the need to believe and defend women who are abused. The night went on like this, apparently. 

 https://www.dailywire.com/news/25502/walsh-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh#

The viewing audience was subjected to one moralizing lecture after another from people who either participated in, or kept their mouth shut about, Hollywood's sexual assault problem until they had no choice but to speak against it. Now they want us to applaud their courage. And many people seem more than happy to oblige.

Not me.

These cowards — both the men and the women, equally — not only tolerated the predators in their midst but heaped adulation on them for years. Woody Allen won the lifetime achievement at these same Golden Globes only four years ago. Meryl Streep went on stage at the Golden Globes in 2012 and called Harvey Weinstein a "god." 

Roman Polanski, child rapist, received a standing ovation at the Academy Awards in 2002. The list goes on. 

Natalie Portman is being praised for taking a bratty little swipe at the "all-male" directing award nominees, but she didn't seem to have much problem with Hollywood's male predators last year when she wined and dined with Kevin Spacey, a man well known in the industry for his affinity for underage boys.

They all praised and befriended the predators and begged to be in their films when their career ambitions were best served by doing so. 

Yep. A good start. He went on talking with a bunch while Melanie stepped up. Boy was she spitting chips! 

Hollywood hypocrites feel sorry only for themselves

Never mind the movies: the theatricality and demand for applause at the Golden Globe awards in Los Angeles at the weekend took place on the red carpet. Actors wore black outfits to signal their solidarity with victims of the sexual harassment scandals that have consumed Hollywood.

It’s hard to recall a more egregious display of vanity signalling than the black dress protest. It was 

“please snap me while I pose in my conscience”. 

MeToo! MeToo!

M'thinks they do not do irony well in Hollywood. Black Consciences are, well, black. Showing them off is a bit rich. 

Shortly before the awards there was a major crisis. Forget Iran, Syria or North Korea. So many Hollywood consciences needed to be on display that designers and stylists were reportedly running out of black attire and having to rush in more from their fashion bases in New York.

 https://newstral.com/en/article/en/1084319831/hollywood-hypocrites-only-feel-sorry-for-themselves

One stylist who dresses Mariah Carey told The Hollywood Reporter: “We are all fighting for the same black dresses”. 

MeToo! MeToo!

Oprah Winfrey’s hair stylist said the pressure was “incredibly stressful”.

You have to weep. Perhaps they should join the military and go to Afghanistan for a rest from all the stress. 

Another said stylists would be having sleepless nights over how to showcase their clients in black garments. “It has to be creative. How can I stand out?”

How indeed. You’ll be relieved to know that Angelina Jolie was in feather-trimmed black tulle, Laura Dern was in black Armani and Gal Gadot wore a tuxedo-inspired Tom Ford gown.

Whatever happened to the idea that women shouldn’t be defined by what they wear? 

According to Eva Longoria, wearing black was “a moment of solidarity, not a fashion statement … This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around”. 

Oh but they did, Eva, they did; this time, though, it was a meaningful twirl.

It didn’t stop, though, at mere attire. Many female actors brought a female activist as a date and chose to be photographed arm-in-arm with other women.

This was solidarity not just against men outed as sex-pests but against all men. Receiving a lifetime achievement award, Oprah Winfrey spoke about “a culture broken by brutally powerful men” whose “time is up”. 

Now Oprah is being touted as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2020. 

SheToo!

The hypocrisy is epic. Many actors expressing such outrage use sexual chemistry to attract the predatory male movie executives they then profess to despise. They habitually wear outfits that leave little to the imagination, split upwards or downwards or utterly transparent. What’s more, many of the movies and TV series in which they appear, some of them having forgotten to put on any clothes at all, have long crossed the line into soft porn.

Among all the exaggerated outrage, however, there have been victims of real, horrific, sexual violence. Yet many of those blustering in black at the Globes knew about this behaviour but kept quiet about it in order not to jeopardise their careers.

When Roman Polanski won the Oscar for best director in 2003, he wasn’t present at the ceremony. He had fled to France after being charged in 1977 with rape, sodomy and other offences against a 13-year-old girl and had pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

When his award was announced, however, Meryl Streep, among others, leapt to her feet to give him a standing ovation. No matter: there she was at the Globes displaying her principles and courage by wearing a long black gown instead.

Where is this outrage going to draw a line? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is in disarray over the fact that, having expelled Harvey Weinstein for his sexual aggression, they face similarly having to ban dozens of A-listers — Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck and many more — who have also been outed (with some denials) in the Great Casting-Couch Terror.

The director Woody Allen has been accused by his adoptive daughter Dylan of molesting her. David Krumholtz, who co-starred in Allen’s recent film Wonder Wheel, tweeted a few days ago that he deeply regretted doing so as it was “one of my most heart-breaking mistakes. We can no longer let these men represent us in entertainment, politics, or any other realm. They are beneath real men.”

When feminists objected that it was a bit late now to have second thoughts, Krumholtz said he had donated his Wonder Wheel salary to the protesters “without a tweet”. Which he nevertheless told us.

Laura Dern used her acceptance speech for her best supporting actress award to urge: 

“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.”

Yet the causes regularly promoted by such luvvies — climate change, Black Lives Matter, anti-colonialism, anti-Islamophobia, LGBT issues — are being advanced by condign retribution, such as character assassination or social and professional ostracism, against any who dares speak against them.

Moreover, Hollywood’s finest don’t don black outfits to protest against men in the developing world who not only abuse but slaughter women, men and children.

Millions of women around the world really do suffer in cultures where male violence towards women is a given; but on those victims, these Hollywood hypocrites are silent.

In cultures they choose to present as victims of western colonialism, they simply ignore the all-too real oppression of women. They profess “solidarity” with oppressed women; but of course, it’s really all about themselves.

Yep, Melanie covers the bases. But we can overlook the bases not covered by journalists. Not covered by the media. They are quick to attack, say, the Catholic Church and call for heads to roll, but never do we see any statistics about the number of predators and paedophiles and homosexuals in other institutions. Like journalism, for instance.

Bill Donahue had our back on that one.

Media Provide Cover for Boston Globe

On December 8th, the Boston Globe published an article citing some past and recent examples of sexual misconduct among its employees. 

Well, no 'extra' here.

There were two curious things about the piece: the timing and the content.

The article was posted online after work on a Friday, around 6:00 p.m. This was no mistake: bleeding out bad news late on a Friday is done purposely so few readers will notice it. The next day the article appeared in the newspaper; Saturday is known for having the lowest circulation of the week.

The content was just as cute: Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory refused to name names—he protected the "privacy" of the sexual predators,.... 

thus adopting a "confidentiality policy" for the Globe that his newspaper found unconscionable when invoked by the Boston archdiocese.

On December 12th, I wrote a news release blasting McGrory for his duplicity; we provided our subscribers with email contact information at the Globe. On December 18, I struck again, detailing many examples of Globe editorials savaging the Catholic Church for following the same policy it had adopted all along as its own. We sent my statement to over 100 editors and reporters at the newspaper.

Ahhhh, now THIS is Fighting. I like it. Pints for the rest of the evening for Bill. 

That same day, I discussed this matter with Laura Ingraham on her Fox News Show, "The Ingraham Angle." That was a Monday.

 https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/bill-donohue-media-provide-cover-boston-globe

Late on the following Thursday, McGrory apologized online for not saying who the most recent sexual abuser was. He identified the man and then tried to walk away from the issue. He never fingered all of the other predators known to him, nor did he identify the guilty who worked at the Globe before his time. Surely the Globe keeps personnel records— 

it demanded the Boston archdiocese turn over its files. So why not the Globe's?

Why were none of these abusers reported to the authorities?  

Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal in Massachusetts, and that includes verbal, as well as physical, offenses. 

Oh, yes, McGrory's apology to readers of the newspaper's edition appeared on Friday, December 22, the last workday—many were off—before Christmas.

The Catholic Church has long been trashed for the way it handled the problem of sexual misconduct, but the media have said virtually nothing about the Boston Globe's duplicity. Is that because its competitors do not want to open up a can of worms?

We normally call it a cover up when those who work in a company fail to come clean about wrongdoing. 

What do we call it when almost an entire profession covers for its own? 

Journalism?

Go for it Bill. The Jugular.

Now before anyone goes off half-cocked and accuse me of beng 'holier than thou', I recognise hypocricy as a human failing common to pretty well everyone. Mea Culpa. I am not without sin. But I do not make a song and dance and have scriptwriters write my speech notes. I do not go on TV and say what a staunch fellow I am - even if I am. I do not - and I am not being presumptious to say neither do you - expect applause.

And a role in a film.

And a couple of million bucks.

Nope. I pull pints and wipe the tables.

Despite being a little bitty hipocrite, I am not in their league.

Pax 

A Beheading to Cheer.

Usually when someone is beheaded we groan "not again", as the Authorities fall over themselves to say it was 'mental illness' not Muslim Terrorism. Of course terrorism it isn't: it is simply Muslim. But today the cheers went up in the UK bar as we heard of a British soldier using his spade to send a terrorist to Judgement.

You can get a fine edge on a spade, even if it is usually used for digging latrines or trenches. I have put my sword to extra duties a time or two, too.

Not that all was song and laughter, because down at the other end of the bar a Colonel was reading the riot act against the weenies who run the show from their plush offices in Whitehall.

But let us take a look at what happened with the spade. Rod Ardehali hugged his pint to his chest and told the customers about it.

SAS soldier decapitates ISIS thug with SPADE 

during fierce six-hour gun battle after they were ambushed in Afghanistan

• SAS soldier cuts-off ISIS militant's head with spade during fierce gun battle 

• The elite soldiers were ambushed following a meeting with former Taliban spies 

• ISIS insurgents have flocked to Afghanistan of late after losing ground in Syria 

• Air support forced the insurgents to flee saving the SAS who'd run out of ammo.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5243355/SAS-soldier-decapitates-ISIS-thug-spade.html

An SAS soldier decapitated an ISIS terrorist using only a spade after their unit was ambushed by militants during a patrol in eastern Afghanistan.

The veteran sergeant is said to have cut-off the gunman's head in one swoop after running out of ammunition during a fierce six-hour gun battle.

After killing him, the elite soldier then used the jihadist's own weapon to kill more ISIS henchmen. 

When the special forces unit was ambushed by the ISIS gunmen, the Brits were forced to take refuge in a farm, picking off the attackers while under heavy fire. 

But despite their skilled field combat the soldiers began to run low on bullets, leaving them sitting ducks. 

The soldiers radioed their base calling for air support but could not tell whether the message was received. 

Fearing that their time was up,..... 

the soldiers made a pact to fight until the death 

.....instead of being captured and tortured on camera before a public execution.

Some of the English speaking jihadists taunted the Brits warning they would send their decapitated heads back to their wives. 

Our source said: 'The SAS thought they had seen their last day.

'They made a pact that they wouldn't be taken alive and vowed to fight to the death.

Capture would mean torture and a filmed execution and they weren't prepared to let that happen.

'They made every bullet count and when they ran low on ammo they waited for the jihadis to get close enough so they could be killed with grenades or using rifles as clubs – that was when one of the SAS managed to kill a man with a spade.'

But just as it seemed the brave SAS soldiers were going to be overwhelmed by the ISIS terrorists, two US Apache helicopter gunships appeared, forcing the insurgents to withdraw.

A US Chinook followed and rescued them. 

By the time they arrived half the SAS unit had no ammunition left.

These are Fighting Men. Thay have Honour and Courage and are prepared to give all. It is a shame on us all that those who are put in Political authority over them are such a woeful mob who have no idea of what soldiering is about.

They ran out of ammunition. They are all too often sent into battle, ill-equipped. But they soldier on. Their 'superiors' in Parliaments have no concern for the realities of war. Happy they are to take the kudos for sending men far, far better, and all too often far, far younger to take the hail of bullets from the enemy.

Colonel Collins had some terse words.

Colonel Tim Collins was the CO of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment.
He is a fighting soldier.

He led men under fire in the 1st Gulf War, the Colombia Drugs War, the Zaire Army Rebellion 1991, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Iraq War and on several tours of Northern Ireland.

He's perhaps best known for his rousing speech to his men as they prepared to invade Iraq in 2003 - a framed copy was said to hang in the White House Oval Office.

Here, he is depicted by Kenneth Branagh, giving that speech, in which the Virtues of soldiering are driven home. Virtues that few if any westen 'Defense Ministers' know. (Perhaps now with the exception of the USA)

The Colonel has some very important opinions regarding the UK's Military. Not optimistic. Btut he could be writing about the Australian Army - the issues are the same as are the dangers.

Our soldiers are starved of manpower and materiel. 

The police look and act far more fiercely, although I cannot say that the Police in Oz for all their armour and war-like vehicles even bother to build up an arrest rate against rioting immigrants. 

Worse, our militaries are seeking recruits from all the wrong people. They do not want fit, fighting men, but select women and odd bods whose credentials are soley skin colour.

For shame.

I shall let Collins say his well-considered piece while I pull pints to cool angry customers.

The Army has been taken over by PC dreamers who are putting lives at risk

The ludicrous and dangerous morass into which obsequious and PC- addled senior officers have led the British Army is a source of real concern to every citizen of the nation.

In the face of external threats and massive budget constraints, the latest very public direction from the Army is to drop the use of "sir" – or indeed "ma’m" - when answering the telephone, for fear of giving some offence to the person at the far end. 

 http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2018/01/colonel-tim-collins-on-the-deadly-dangers-from-generals-under-the-influence-of-diversity.html

This comes alongside notices not to use language like "mankind", "chaps" or "gentleman's agreement" from the Joint Equality Diversity and Inclusion unit, nicknamed the “Jedi”.

It is merely the most obvious manifestation of a lack of leadership that time and effort are given to such trivia in the face of crisis. 

The Armed Forces are at the same time both failing to recruit new members and capping recruitment of Gurkhas, Commonwealth volunteers and the Irish in favour of recruits that "reflect society" (whatever that means).  It was the same when I commanded 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment. 

I took command of a battalion 300 men under strength. With the chaotic Army recruiting group frankly getting in the way, we in 1 R Irish started our own recruiting drive – in Ireland – and I led a fully manned battalion to war in 2003.  

How did I achieve that when the lavishly funded official system pathetically failed?  

I recruited men for military service and adventure, and not to "reflect society". 

I had this discussion at a briefing at the Ministry of Defence. A civil servant outlined to invited guests the failing system they were pursuing and lamented the failed uptake of women and ethnic minorities. (LGBT individuals were not yet a priority at that point).

I asked: "do you want an army that reflects society or one that is effective?" The answer was "Well, both, hopefully." I explained that you can’t have both. 

This led to the question of why the numbers of recruits from the Commonwealth and Ireland were being capped. Once again, she replied we want an army that reflects our society. 

Then, with a roll of her eyes, as if addressing a stupid little boy, she explained that things had moved on and now warfare was much more nuanced than when I served. Empathising with the people we were likely to meet overseas would, she explained, lead to much less violence and better understanding. 

That put me in my place. 

During my service we certainly tried to empathise where possible but erred on making the enemy – for that is what they are – reluctant to tangle or better still terrified of us. 

I would suggest that this lady never ever visits South Armagh. There are sections of the community there who given half a chance and allowed close enough would rip our faces off. 

That is the reality. 

That was also the reality of the drug-addled West Side Boys in Sierra Leone, who took twelve members of my regiment hostage in 2000.  

Put these waste of space people in uniform
and send them to battle

The SAS rescue which I was involved with from London realised far too late that empathising with these thugs had in fact made matters much worse and had in fact put the lives of the hostages in more danger.  That is the difference between actual experience and daydreaming of a better world.

Daydreaming of a better world is a very dangerous occupation and one that should be confined to specialist hospitals and universities. 

As a parent of a serving officer, I am very worried that one day some dreamer will send my son into harm’s as part of a nuanced force and at serious risk to his life. 

It is a real concern that the senior military care more about their PC profile than the men and women who dare to serve.  

I unashamedly made it my priority to preserve the life and limbs of my young men where possible. No one who has had to bury teenagers would ever consider such dangerous nonsense on operations.

Edward Gibbon noted in his Decline and Fall: "The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy….and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians." The Romans supported armed strength in theory, but did not wish to pay for it or to offer their own children as army recruits.

My fellow Ulsterman Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson (who was murdered by the IRA), once said: "It is better to have no armed forces at all than have forces just big enough to invite attack but not strong enough to win."  

I would urge Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary, to wade in, purge the MoD of the PC dreamers, disband the Jedi and appoint someone to lead. 

It is the Government’s duty to defend our nation.

The Colonel has 'Pint Rights' in the Tavern.

Drink with and to him.

And pass the shovel around.

Pax