Let's start off with two suggestions:-

Is it true that BAE [ship building, not including submarine building] stands for BLOODY ANTI ENGLISH?

and does MOD stand for MODUS OPERANDI DEFUNCT?

There is much evidence to suggest that both acronyms have or will change their interpretations!

BAE [ship building] has long said that they would close up shop in Portsmouth Dockyard and they have kept their promise of putting 1800 highly skilled ENGLISH workers on the dole this month [November 2015]. Shame on them. However, when everybody knows that eventually Scotland will become independent and as such, a foreign nation to what will be left of the UK, those running BAE [ship building] have put all their eggs into a basket sculling around in a Scottish builders yard, or is that yards? If the Scots do go for independence it would be an absurdity to have British Aerospace as one of its major Euro [we assume] earning Plc: it WOULD HAVE TO BE SAE [Scottish Aerospace] - that's assuming that they purchase it from BAE.   Surely we can't place future orders for OUR surface warships [negat BAE [submarine building which remains British, specifically loyal English to the UK giving jobs to highly skilled workers in Barrow in Furness Cumbria], in Scotland, willy nilly.  Surely we must first shop around in other FOREIGN yards, many of them building fine warships, whose countries, judging by the attitude of those nationalists running the SNP, are far friendlier and more trustworthy than the Scots. Germany, France and Italy come immediately to mind. If we, as a maritime nation, are so bloody hapless in not being able to build our own surface warships, then let us be at least ultra cost-conscious, and go out to tender choosing a cheaper alternative to a newly created cash-strapped Scotland, who, by implication will own BAE Scotland [ship building] ergo SAE,  who will continue charging huge prices and incur huge delays as we have witnessed many times before. Moreover Scotland would be a nation without a credible defence system or budget, and as such hardly a suitable builder of surface warships despite the expertise of the former British company BAE, now a foreign company registered in Scotland: but remember the SAE bit. What would happen if their build-yard was attacked and our warships-in-build were in their stocks/docks, with no Scottish resources to repel boarders? If BAE Scotland [SAE] wanted the job, they should employ only British UK people sub-contracting the job to BAE UK moving south into a UK yard for the actual build. BAE Scotland [SAE] would be a foreign company, and what would be the difference between them and say an Italian ship builder? We should follow the mercantile marine in this matter: you wouldn't get Cunard or P&O having a ship built in any other place other than Italy or perhaps Spain, and that is simply because of reliability, build-quality, cost and delivery which cannot be bettered. Just remember that these merchant ships do non- stop sea time, with very few defects and missed sailing times, with something like 82% of their lives at sea, as opposed to just under 28% for a British warship, not counting our nuclear deterrent vessels which of course are British through and through designed and built by BAE UK which wouldn't include Scotland. By the way, if built in Italy, the Marina Militare [Italian Navy] is well capable in size and punch to defend their infrastructure including its ship yards.

Now what about HMS Ocean - week commencing 30th November 2015 News? Well, first off the reason. I have it on good authority that we don't have enough sailors, and in 2018, Oceans crew will be needed for the Prince of Wales. Decommissioning in 2018 will give enough time for training [re-training] for their sideways move to the new carrier.

But the sheer waste of money £98M in Ocean's recent renovation, money spent for her last two years of operational life [which we call being RDP [in a run down period] where sailors are inclined to let the end go, and the underhanded way in which the MOD hid the fact of her premature scrapping is really unacceptable. Premature, not because she is elderly {?}, but because the next suitable flagship the Queen Elizabeth is still five years away from becoming operational, in carrier terms, the passing of her ORI - operational readiness inspection - and possibly eight years away from getting RN fixed wing aircraft on her deck. What a bloody way to run a navy! What a sick joke!  The dear old Yanks [and I mean that sincerely] must be wondering, that's when they are not laughing and ridiculing the British government including the MOD [Navy] [note, but not the RN] for their gross ineptitude. At a time we MOST NEED a carrier to assault the ISIS we haven't got one, although even if we had, could these brave Typhoon and Tornado RAF pilots use it?  Better a short flight from a Gulf based carrier [or even offshore Syria in the Mediterranean] than a longish return trip from Cyprus. France enjoys that platform from the Charles de Gualle along with USN carriers, but the USA and Russia have the benefit of local terra firma platforms.

I have a feeling that the part played by the government to correctly fund and provide a navy fit for purpose for our highly professional sailors to put to good use, is a kind of an ISIS in itself, repeating over the years, Insincerity - Sincerity - Insincerity - Sincerity ad infinitum, when really we would much prefer a much older enemy's signage, that of the endearing German SS regiment, with only 'S' on offer for permanent - Sincerity!

Obscure?  Well perhaps so, but I am sure you will get my meaning, and we were/are at war, so the SS and ISIS are not that silly when you think about it! They are/were enemies of the worst possible kind, and not of course on the same footing as the MOD, but sometimes the MOD is an enemy of sorts and one we don't need: we have enough on our plates!

Forgive me anyway.  Thanks.

P.S. If you are tempted to use my acronym definitions, then please credit the amended versions to me. 

That is what I penned last evening. Today, Wednesday 2nd December 2015, I am watching the televised Parliament Today, to watch the Prime Ministers Motion for Approval to go to war against ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State/so-called Islamic State whatever. I wasn't as up to speed as I should have been, for, although I had often seen/heard the word DAESH, I hadn't bothered to look at the derivation of the word. Ten minutes ago the Prime Minister told us that the ISIS itself see the word DAESH [an Arabic orthodox Islamic insult OR a pejorative Arabic acronym] as an out and out gross insult and have threatened to cut the tongues out of the heads of those who use that word, and therefore he and his colleagues from henceforward will cease using the acronyms ISIS/ISIL etc, and use instead only the word DAESH. I am going to follow my wise Prime Minister, which trashes all my work [poetic licence albeit] above. I have therefore re-jigged my acronym, even though it no longer fits my purpose of being "sincere" as follows:-


...........not that all Sunni Muslims are bad, far from it - I have specifically said "heretics",  but the politics and religion of DAESH known as Wahhabism, is a very strict religion/culture/sharia law based on the Islamic Sunni religion. Wahhabism, exercised on a daily basis by Saudi Arabia [beheading, stoning etc], is patently evil, only DAESH' version is more evil that the Saudi's interpretation of Wahhabism, who sadly are one of our middle east allies. Remember that Wahhabism is about eradicating the world of Shia Muslims [their greatest enemy] as well as infidels however defined by them, and as bad [because of their record to date] as they are, getting into bed with Russia and Iran has great merit in destroying the DAESH, but more importantly winning new allies both internationally and in the middle east. The Iranians have recently shown their willingness to give and take on issue of nuclear power and under suitable conditions, many think they would give more.