Latest news with #BritishArmedForces
The Sun
2 days ago
- The Sun
The English glampsite where you can sleep in an American school bus and fire engine – with new aircraft stay too
STANDARD four-walled hotel rooms getting a little boring for you? Well, why not stay in an old fire engine or American school bus instead. Manor House Glamping in Blackpool is home to a whole array of different things to stay in, and most even come with a hot tub. 7 7 For example, you could stay in a 1956 'Green Goddess' fire engine. The vehicle used to belong to the Auxiliary fire service, which was created for civil defence for World War II. Inside, the 1400 litre water tank has been removed and the roof has been lifted to create a more roomy accommodation. There is a bed and two single seats, a table and fridge too and an ECO wood-fired hot tub. Or you could snooze in an old American school bus. Inside it is decked out with funky decor, including old gym flooring and Marshal speaker-inspired fridge. There is even an old school desk to dine at... or stylishly work away from home. For relaxation, you can switch on Netflix or pick up a Super Nintendo games console. Don't fancy the noise? Then jump in the American stock tank woodfired hot tub. Inside luxury dog-friendly glamping pod with wild Scottish spa and its own fairy pools You can also 'fly' without flying in a former Royal Navy helicopter. Previously used in active service for over 40 years with the British Armed Forces, the helicopter features a luxury double bed integrated into the main fuselage and an outdoor, undercover living space. There is also a woodfired hot tub and even a 'sea mine' firepit and grill. And then there is the cockpit of a Boeing 737... You will find the bed nestled right next the plane's gears and myriad of buttons, where pilots would sit. 7 7 And there is also a living space where original features of the plane have been cleverly highlighted, such as the doors and life vests. The newest addition is a Rolls Royce engine pod, which may sound small but actually fits two people with a standard size double bed. Outside there is even a private 'cinema', with a 75 inch 4K smart TV. For when it gets a little chilly, there is an outdoor patio heater as well. The Rolls Royce/Vickers VC10 engine pod was even seen on George Clarkes Amazing Spaces. Guests will need to bring their own bedding to the glamping site, such as a duvet or sleeping bag and pillows. As for food, guests can grab a woodfired pizza on site between 6PM and 7PM. 7 7 Choices include classic margarita and 'Hot Pig, with chorizo, and prices start from just £9. Whilst dogs and kids aren't allowed at the site, there are some other residents you could meet. Mick and Alice, for example, are the site's resident emus. You may also see seven chickens and two runner ducks. The glamping site has rave reviews too, scoring a perfect five out of five on TripAdvisor. One visitor said: "This was an amazing experience. Such a chilled vibe and something extremely unique." Another added: "A must visit for anyone with a sense of adventure." The different types of accommodation vary in price, but start as low as £125 per night. At another UK glamping site, you can enjoy breathtaking views from a vintage cheese vat turned hot tub. Plus, the Finnish-like glamping resort in the UK countryside with safari lodges, sauna and outdoor cinemas. 7
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Marching in the name of legacy: Sikh regiment debate rekindled in Britain
1 2 3 4 5 6 The debate over whether there should be a Sikh regiment in the British Armed Forces has resurfaced, but the UK ministry of defence (MOD) insists there are no such plans. The debate was triggered after Lord Sahota asked British defence minister Lord Coaker in the House of Lords on July 7 whether there was any progress of having a Sikh regiment in the British Army, given the loyalty of Sikh soldiers in both world wars. Coaker replied: "Let me consider that request from my noble friend. I am quite happy to meet him to see what more we can do to recognise the contribution of soldiers such as Sikhs." This led to UK headlines such as 'Minister open to British Army Sikh regiment proposal'. Lord Sahota is the title given to British-Sikh Kuldip Singh Sahota, a member of the House of Lords. Contrary to the headlines, MOD sources told TOI that over the years there had been conversations about this, but such a move would breach Britain's anti-discriminatory laws. "There are no current plans for a Sikh regiment as it goes against the Equality Act. We want to do something to recognise Sikh contributions in some way, but not through a Sikh regiment," said sources. Lord Sahota, whose grandfathers served in the British Indian Army, including the 15th Punjab Regiment, told TOI: "I don't think it would go against the Equality Act." He pointed out the British Army had the Staffordshire regiment and currently has the Brigade of Gurkhas, the Royal Yorkshire Regiment, Royal Welsh and Royal Regiment of Scotland and so on. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo "It doesn't mean other faiths like Hindus, Muslim or Christians wouldn't be able to serve in a Sikh regiment. If you are in the Royal Regiment of Scotland, it doesn't mean you have to be Scottish." Lord Sahota said the regiment would give Sikhs a reason to join. "We are struggling to recruit ethnic minorities in this country," he said. "They would wear turbans and have beards, and it would reflect Sikh heritage and values. It would foster a better relationship with other countries such as India and South Asia as well." There are estimated to be only 200 Sikhs in the British Armed Forces. "People tend to go in the army if their grandfather was in it. Sikhs don't have that role model here," Sahota said. Sahota added that if there was a Punjab or Sikh regiment, they would have that role model. "There are more than 700,000 Sikhs in the UK. I am sure quite a few would be prepared to follow in their great grandfather's footsteps. King Charles even told a Sikh soldier he wanted to see more Sikhs in the British Army," the Labour life peer added. India-born Sahota (74) said he plans to meet Lord Coaker after the summer recess and will take Sikhs in the British Army and MPs with him. Birmingham Edgbaston MP Preet Kaur Gill, who has met the armed forces minister many times, to raise the issue, said no decision had been made yet. "It is being looked at. There have been existing Sikh regiments in the army. It's not anything new," she added. The Indian Army has a Sikh Regiment which continues to recruit from the community and a Punjab Regiment. The regiment is one of the most decorated and traces its origins to the first Sikh Battalion raised by the East India Company in 1846. But veteran army reservist Captain Jay Singh-Sohal OBE is against the idea. "Even if they did this, they wouldn't fill out a regiment with recruits. We struggle with getting young Sikhs into the military as it is. A Sikh regiment isn't going to change this and would become massively understaffed. A single-battalion regiment requires 700 plus. A Sikh regiment will fail as it won't get 700 plus young Sikhs joining. And if the answer is to look beyond Sikhs, what's the point of a race-specific regiment?" he said. "These British-Sikh politicians need to make the argument for the benefit of Sikh-specific regiments in the context of the threats we face today," Sohal added. "It's not about harking to past glories, but about practical ways in which Sikhs today can make an impact through military service. I believe Sikhs do make an impact as we serve alongside those who represent Great Britain as a whole," Johal said. He said the Sikh identity was already recognised as a strength in the British Army and protected by UK law. "We don't need special treatment. We already practice our faith in the army. A modern army is about bringing capabilities and insights from different walks of life and backgrounds to create a synergy into a whole team setting. Sikhs can contribute a lot to that. Having a Sikh-specific regiment won't motivate more youngsters to join. What would, is if they see value in soldiering or developing themselves as a leader through military experience. I challenge Preet Gill and Lord Sahota to find me 20 Sikhs willing to sign up to the British Army right now, regardless of whether we have a Sikh regiment or not. They won't be able to do it," Sohal added. Slough MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, chair of the defence committee that scrutinises the work of the MOD, said he had supported the establishment of a British Sikh regiment for several years, given the extraordinary history, martial traditions and sacrifices of Sikh soldiers, especially during both world wars. "While the campaign has not achieved success thus far, we will certainly continue to make the case," he added.
Spectator
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
How Britain ended up in the Afghan asylum mess
The Afghan data leak has generated a mass of lurid headlines and, no doubt, there is still much analysis, pointing of fingers and assigning of blame to come. But how did it happen that the UK ended up with such an obligation to so many thousands of Afghans and their families? I support the evacuation, but clarity of ends does not necessarily justify the means. My assessment is that between 2014 and 2021 – when we, along with other Isaf nations, had moved from a combat to a support and capacity-building role – we took our eye off the ball. We accumulated liabilities but had no real mechanism to understand or control them. In this we were hampered by the particular feature of the UK's capacity-building: our focus was not on the main bulk of the Afghan security forces but on specialist units such as counter-narcotic forces, police commandos and intelligence units. (They were often known by their 'task force' designation, TF 444, TF 222, etc, hence the common nickname 'triples'.) The specialist units attracted the expertise and engagement of our special forces and intelligence agencies. They were highly successful, noted for their competence and effectiveness, and unlike the locally 'employed' civilians, of whom the interpreters are the best-known examples, the triples were employed by their Afghan ministries, not the British Armed Forces. The reality, however, was somewhat different. They were trained, mentored, supported, and in many cases, paid directly by us: their independence from us, in short, was nominal and hence they can reasonably be regarded as our local auxiliary forces and our responsibility. All might have been well had not the fundamental premise upon which we were operating in that era, the continuing existence of a more or less competent Afghan government, began to unravel at the back end of Trump's first presidency. This raised, as the army call it, a 'question four'. We had to ask ourselves: has the situation changed and, if so, do we change the plan or even the whole mission? We answered poorly. Faced with deterioration of the Afghan government, we did not examine hard enough, nor think through quickly enough, the potential consequences. President Trump's dislike of 'forever wars' is visceral and real, and his advisors reckoned, not without reason, that peace would only come to Afghanistan if some sort of deal was done with the Taliban. No-one in 2020 envisaged an Afghan governmental collapse but it was quite clear by Aug 2020 that a peace-deal era Afghanistan would be unfriendly towards those with a strong link to the Allies. That, along with the strong moral case, drove a change of heart in the then defence secretary Ben Wallace and home secretary Priti Patel in how they would look after our interpreters. The presumption at the heart of the 2014 Intimidation Scheme was that our former interpreters would be resettled in Afghanistan; this was scrapped and henceforward they were all to be offered sanctuary in the UK. This new scheme, Arap, was to formally come into effect in April 2021. What does not appear to have happened in the interim period from August 2020 to April 2021 was a 'reading across' of the logic that had driven the change in the interpreters' scheme: if it was unsafe for interpreters, then wouldn't those who had worked in our very active and very effective Afghan specialist units, trained and mentored by Britain, also be at risk? When this was raised with officials, they fell back either onto lawyerly arguments ('they're not employed by us') or Panglossian 'finger-crossing'. Somehow, they hoped, everything would turn out fine. It did not help that much of the mentoring had been conducted by 'secret squirrel' organisations. Information was held in silos, so the scale of our engagement, and thus knowledge of the extent of our liability, was partial at best. When President Biden directed, in April 2021, that US forces would only now fire in self-defence and would leave Afghanistan by the summer, what previously might have been regarded as a risk, now became a certainty. As Afghan units were progressively overrun, widespread massacres and brutality took place. This was particularly so with Afghan specialist units, whom both the Taliban and their Pakistani ISI directors were keen to eliminate. It is that which drove the desperation of the scenes at Kabul airport. The 2,000 to 3,000 we expected to evacuate through Operation Pitting turned into 15,000, as desperate Afghan commando units fought their way to the airport. That still left many thousands more, in hiding and in fear, hoping that their previous supporters and paymasters would not forget them. It is this mess that the hapless Marine had to sort-out. In desperation, he made a mistake but given the complexity he was trying to resolve, across so many disparate agencies, one questions the decision to have, in effect, a single, potential, point of failure. Earlier, during the interim period, and even after the Biden betrayal, the scale of our liability could have been recognised, plans developed, and parliament briefed. None of that happened. This all, of course, coincided with the Covid crisis and in UK, the aftermath of Brexit; even in the Behemoth that is Whitehall, we should acknowledge there is a 'bandwidth' problem. But who actually 'owned' Afghanistan in Whitehall? Who might have foreseen this problem? Who might have fixed it? I struggle.
New York Post
17-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
UK government to lower voting age to 16 before next national election despite strong conservative opposition
The United Kingdom is lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 before the next national elections – a move which opposition figures decry as a way to sway the electorate to benefit the left. The U.K. government, controlled by the Labour Party, announced Thursday that 16- and 17-year-olds will be given the right to vote as part of other new 'seismic changes.' Other election reforms include extending voter ID to bank cards, issuing new rules meant to 'guard against foreign political interference and abuse of campaigners,' and tightening laws restricting foreign donations to British political parties. Advertisement In an accompanying policy paper included in the announcement, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said that 'declining trust in our institutions and democracy itself has become critical, but it is the responsibility of government to turn this around and renew our democracy, just as generations have done before us.' 4 The U.K. government, controlled by the Labour Party, announced Thursday that 16- and 17-year-olds will be given the right to vote. REUTERS 'I think it's really important that 16- and 17-year-olds have the vote because they're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes, so to pay in. And I think if you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go,' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters on Thursday. 'I'm really pleased that we're able to bring more young people into our democracy.' 'Young people already contribute to society by working, paying taxes and serving in the military. It's only right they can have a say on the issues that affect them,' Rayner wrote on X. The deputy prime minister also elaborated in a statement, adding: 'We cannot take our democracy for granted, and by protecting our elections from abuse and boosting participation we will strengthen the foundations of our society for the future.' Advertisement 4 'I think it's really important that 16- and 17-year-olds have the vote because they're old enough to go out to work,' Keir Starmer said. POOL/AFP via Getty Images The minimum age of service in the British Armed Forces is 16, but those under 18 need written consent from a parent or guardian and may not be deployed to combat zones. British opposition politicians accused the Labour Party of trying to manipulate the electorate in their favor by lowering the voting age. 'Why does this government think a 16‑year‑old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting?' Member of Parliament (MP) Paul Holmes, a conservative, said in the House of Commons on Thursday. 'Isn't the government's position on the age of maturity just hopelessly confused?' Advertisement 4 The minimum age of service in the British Armed Forces is 16, but those under 18 need written consent from a parent or guardian. REUTERS Holmes accused Labour of 'governing by press release' and questioned whether allowing bank cards – which do not include photographs – as a form of voter ID will undermine security measures at the ballot box. Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK Party, said giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote 'is an attempt to rig the political system.' 'The problem with this is, not only do half of youngsters not want the vote, but they have to stay at school now until they're 18,' Farage said in a video shared to X. 'The educational establishment is full of left-wing prejudice, is full of anti-reform bias, and frankly, if 16 to 18 year olds at school are going to be able to vote, we're going to have to make sure that our education system is teaching kids to make their own minds up and not indoctrinating them.' Advertisement 4 Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK Party, said giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote 'is an attempt to rig the political system.' AP The change still requires parliamentary approval but was a campaign promise by the Labour Party, which won last year's general election and holds majority control. The next general election is in 2029. Rayner noted that 16- and 17-year-olds can already vote in Scotland and Wales in local elections and country-level parliamentary elections. The minimum voting age for local elections in England and Northern Ireland is 18. In an opinion piece in the British newspaper 'The Times,' Rayner, who was a single mother at the age of 16, said the change makes 1.6 million 16- and 17-year-olds eligible to vote in the United Kingdom, which has a population of roughly 68 million. 'This is about fairness and transparency and giving the young a stake in our country's future, bringing them into our communities, not excluding them,' Rayner wrote. 'It's about delivering on our manifesto to commitment to secure votes at 16. But it's also about strengthening our electoral system so that it is fit for the 21st century — because we cannot take our democracy for granted.'
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
This data omnishambles is merely the high water mark of MoD ineptitude
If Britain retains one superpower, it is its talent for building useless bureaucracies. No government department epitomises this quite like the Ministry of Defence. Once among the nation's most reputed institutions, inheriting the prestige of the victorious British Armed Forces when it was formed after the Second World War, the MoD has grown bloated and unaccountable. What senior politicians now regard as the most opaque of all departments seemingly holds public accountability in contempt. The UK defence 'blob' has reached a point where it is imperiling national security. There must be a reckoning. The MoD's omnishambles embodies everything wrong with the British state. It has abused both the legal system and its position as the guardian of national security to conceal an extraordinary error. The marine who leaked the list in question was working out of the headquarters of the elaborately covert Directorate of Special Forces. And yet its protocols for email security apparently fall short of those enforced at British blue-chip firms. One insider tells me it would be 'shockingly easy to be a Snowden in the Ministry of Defence'. The blunder is not a freak occurrence, but rather the high water mark of the MoD's institutional failure. This is not the first major Afghan-related data leak. From laptop thefts to unclassified documents being left at bus stops, breaches have been all too common. The MoD's dysfunction extends beyond the cybersphere. It is grotesquely overstaffed: Finland, which commands a larger wartime force than Britain, has just 150 defence civil servants, yet the MoD has almost 38,000 on its payroll. Bureaucratic judgment has become pathological, swinging between 'indecision, decision by default, and terrible decisions'. It is not just in the realm of cyber technology that the MoD excels at building elaborate but inept administrative units. The department is a Frankenstein's monster, possessing the worst attributes of both the military and civil service. The British Armed Forces seldom punish failure, in contrast with American forces, which routinely remove commanding officers who fall short. 'In Britain you are more likely to be removed from post for having romantic relations with a subordinate than presiding over a blunder that endangers lives,' one former Navy officer tells me. The MoD is equally imbued with the patrician impulses of the civil service. As the historian David Vincent tells me, the civil service's ethos of 'honourable secrecy' goes back to the 19th century, summed up by the mantra: 'A secret may be sometimes best kept by keeping the secret of its being secret.' It won't be easy to bring an end to the chaos at the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps more than any other department, it has proved impervious to reform. The Tories failed miserably at the task – and may have made things more toxic. Insiders wonder whether a tacit arrangement set in, whereby politicians went along with officialdom's strategy for dealing with administrative blunders, while civil servants and senior military officers became 'spinmeisters' for a cash-strapped government in crisis, 'bigging up' its achievements, even as it allowed military capacity to be dangerously run down. The chilling culture shift under the Conservatives is even said to be reflected in the changes to the design of the MoD's headquarters, which used to be open-plan but has, over the last few years, morphed into a 'kind of souk, with certain floors hived off for niche things and enclaves locked off'. Labour came to office vowing to get a grip on the MoD behemoth – but it has achieved little. Much of the dead-weight that Defence Minister John Healey tried to get rid of when he first got the brief were placed in lucrative holding posts – and are now being brought back in. The 'blob' has allegedly already neutered the consultants Healey has hired to drive reform; officials have manoeuvred to ensure that these disruptors will now merely 'manage' the reform process. Top military brass nonetheless hope that Healey can get a grip. One adviser told me that they are encouraged by the contents of his reform strategy and the leadership team that he is bedding in. The incoming Chief of Defence Staff, Rich Knighton, is held in high esteem. Labour needs to get its act together and drive root-and-branch reform. Nobody has yet been held accountable for the Afghan blunder. All those implicated in a cover up must answer for their conduct. Super-injunctions need to be abolished so that it is no longer possible for officials to use them to shield themselves from basic levels of scrutiny. Healey must reverse the incredible disintegration of professional standards within the MoD. One former employee recalls that even 20 years ago, sending an intelligence document with a single wrong digit was a sackable offence. Apparently today, a mistake that costs taxpayers billions of pounds and puts national security and fragile social cohesion at risk only warrants a shift in posts. It's bad enough that intelligence services of hostile countries are dedicating ever-greater resources to penetrate this country's security, without our inept bureaucracy giving our secrets away for free. It is bad enough that public trust in the political class is at an all-time low, without officialdom resorting to celebrity-style gagging orders to cover up its errors. Put simply, it is fundamentally unacceptable that those who are charged with minimising the dangers facing the realm should show such an impressive capacity to simultaneously aggravate all of the country's pressing problems. Keir Starmer is being sucked into a civil war with his party's far-Left as he seeks to re-establish discipline after the welfare reform fiasco. But he needs to turn his attention to the insubordination and chaos at the MoD. It is time for the Prime Minister to show some mettle and take drastic action.
