Thread: Common purpose on Google video

Originally Posted by Aardvark

So why is he described as a former nuclear submarine commander?

I never puff my rank or military experience; I just shut up about the bad bits and highlight my strengths. I was a junior officer on 3 squadrons and a detached flight; I would never tell people that I had commanded a squadron or even a flight of aircraft and I never pretend to be a pilot when I was a navigator and helicopter crewman. I normally just put that I served in the RAF when I stand for council; if I mention that I was an officer it might provoke the men to vote against me in a garrison town such as the one I live in.

In respect of Common Purpose I would argue that Gerrish loses credibility by not concentrating on his post-RN qualifications in management. The fact that he is a former junior officer is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.

He's a smart man whatever his role. I spotted that site EU truth years ago and felt it stood above the rest. It told me things I did not know, it educated me about the EU and it got to the facts like no lesser site could do. I had no idea who he was or what he was, just my overwhelming impression was he knew his stuff. So who cares, you get bus drivers who are members of Mensa and all sorts. He does not come across as someone who needs to keep reminding people of his position, more like the kind who plays it down like you say.

Aardvark,sorry to disagree,but,you of all posters on here are the only one to constantly drop hints about position,and, quietly pull rank and puff themselves up.Looking through what and when you respond it seems obvious that you are an OUTRIGHT EU supporter who is solely engaged in preventing the anti EU fraternity from debating the deciet of the EU and our MPs who so vehemently try to sell it to the people of these Isles.

I would like to think that you have really fooled nobody,but yourself.(Excludes Chik.)

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune

Agreed they could well be just that, a crappy Management training corporation. However I don't like the idea of them operating in schools, using the schools money to fund the courses and operating under the Chatham house rules. That just seems a little dodgy to me. Especially since they are linked to very pro-EU groups, politicising children (with tax payers money) I don't think is on.

Ea of dune

Yes and when one considers what Chatham House is, well I suppose it says it all. There must have been some Chatham House rules going on at the time when they were debating WMDs on the BBC. Look up the Wikipedia entry on Chatham House. It masterfully disguises what it really is!

That's why when I wrote them a letter I wrote it with someone who had a bit of intelligence in mind. There are a lot of clever and well-meaning people who have just not been given and/or exposed to the other side of the story. During life, even people in this position will eventually learn by experience, I had to because no one told me but it can take many years. If I recall what I thought about the world when at university I'd really be kicking myself now.

Actually I went from being a fairly wise kid who had his mind squashed and distorted by the experience and it took me many years to piece it all together. That's what it is all about at school, they constantly feed you with one side of the story and even leave out the most obvious truths. Then these people get shoved straight into A levels, degrees, 10 000 word essays and no time to think. So they are victims of the control mechanism that exists in society, the one called socialism, to put it bluntly.

I remember I had one history teacher that had actually visited the old Soviet Union before 1989. She was a saviour, she told us what the real deal was and I'm very grateful to this day. Most regarded he as more of your Mary Whitehouse figure but she had an important message to transmit. Brian Gerrish has one as well.

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

Aardvark,sorry to disagree,but,you of all posters on here are the only one to constantly drop hints about position,and, quietly pull rank and puff themselves up.Looking through what and when you respond it seems obvious that you are an OUTRIGHT EU supporter who is solely engaged in preventing the anti EU fraternity from debating the deciet of the EU and our MPs who so vehemently try to sell it to the people of these Isles.

I would like to think that you have really fooled nobody,but yourself.(Excludes Chik.)

That's ridiculous.

Just because you don't agree with something Aardvark does or says doesn't mean he is a traitor to his cause.

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

I would like to think that you have really fooled nobody,but yourself.(Excludes Chik.)

I presume you're referring to me, H? I seem to recall us locking horns in the past when your diatribes against Aardvark got a bit too ridiculous. I'm all for a good debate, I just feel that ad hominem attacks diminish the person who issues them. Of course, if there are libellous comments made on this site, they damage not only the credibility of the individual but also the credibility of this forum.

There again, that may be the result that's wanted by the likes of DN et al.

My experience has taught me never to take anybody at face value. Rest assured, I don't fool easily.

Mikeuk,who said he was "a traitor to HIS CAUSE"

IMHO he is only pro EU and in no way a traitor to any cause.