Tax avoidance after the state funeral

RichandJ

StevieJ wrote: »

That is strange, I always thought that the UK had no involvement in the Korean war, especially one that required an austerity budget in what was already austere times (rationing). Maybe that is a mistake it meant to say Malayan?
Just checked it out, very surprised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1285708.stm

Were you perhaps thinking of Vietnam where we didn't have any (overt) military presence ? We were very much there in Korea as others have said.

StevieJ

RichandJ wrote: »

Were you perhaps thinking of Vietnam where we didn't have any (overt) military presence ? We were very much there in Korea as others have said.

Yes I know now (I amended my post), I just thought we stayed out of that one with enough problems in places like Malaya and Kenya to get involved in that one.

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

That is strange, I always thought that the UK had no involvement in the Korean war, especially one that required an austerity budget in what was already austere times (rationing). Maybe that is a mistake it meant to say Malayan?
Just checked it out, very surprised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1285708.stm

The Korean War was a UN action so whilst the US dominated many countries were involved- the Aussies were involved, there was a Belgian unit which was attached to the British forces, and a Turkish regiment, just to name a couple. I think it remains the war in which Britain suffered the greatest number of casualties since WW2.

There are two excellent books about the British participation in the war written by Andrew Salmon - I highly recommend them if you are at all interested. They are very accessible and well researched and written from a human perspective rather than a dry collection of troop movements and dispositions. Probably the best military history books I have ever read and I have read a lot.

neverdespairgirl

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The Korean War was a UN action so whilst the US dominated many countries were involved- the Aussies were involved, there was a Belgian unit which was attached to the British forces, and a Turkish regiment, just to name a couple. I think it remains the war in which Britain suffered the greatest number of casualties since WW2.

Much higher casualties in Afghanistan over the past 10 years, but fewer deaths - medical care in the field and after injury has improved significantly.

dryhat

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Much higher casualties in Afghanistan over the past 10 years, but fewer deaths - medical care in the field and after injury has improved significantly.

Does that include suicide of veterans after returning home?

neverdespairgirl

dryhat wrote: »

Does that include suicide of veterans after returning home?

The government's pretty reluctant to release total casualty figures at all for Afghanistan, so probably not.

They've released the numbers killed, but keep as quiet as possible about the total casualties.

BobQ

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

And Andy Burnham had the embarrassment of complaining that the code for the funeral was operation 'True Blue', when it was given this code name under Labour.

.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-funeral-a-true-blue-occasion-that-has-been-four-years-in-the-making-8566595.html

According to the Independent the name True Blue was used after the coalition came in in 2010. The original project was called "Iron Bridge". This makes sense given that the Queen Mother's was designated "Tay Bridge".

When the Conservatives came into government the plans were reviewed by the incoming Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, who personally took over the chairmanship of the committee. The codename given to the plans was also changed to "True Blue" to give it a more Conservative feel.

chewmylegoff

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Much higher casualties in Afghanistan over the past 10 years, but fewer deaths - medical care in the field and after injury has improved significantly.

Wiki is inconclusive and it of course depends what you count as a casualty. Suggests 5,000 in Korea, incl. 1,000 POW. Suggests about 2,500 in Afghanistan in total from hostile action but another 4,000 hospitalisations from disease and non combat injuries. Not clear whether the Korean figures include only combat or all.

zagubov

RichandJ wrote: »

Were you perhaps thinking of Vietnam where we didn't have any (overt) military presence ? We were very much there in Korea as others have said.

I grew up confused about the Korean and Vietnamese wars but there was a long-running TV series (with, I have to say, some of the best scripts ever written) called MASH which deliberately and satirically blurred the two together.

Churchill laid the foundations in the late 50s for us to stay out of the Vietnamese war -he thought communism was doomed anyway and he said "I'll give it thirty years at the most".

Everybody forgot he said that until it jolly well happened almost exactly on cue.:D

Jennifer_Jane

My father was in Korea: at least aboard an aircraft carrier. He brought back loads of Japanese china and some rather terrifying tiny "heads" which I was convinced were human when I was a child. When my mother, a smoker, died, I was washing a rather nice Japanese (I assume) pot only to find that all the gorgeous painting came away to leave a completely blank pot. I just hope it wasn't some priceless relic. He also brought me a doll from Japan in Western style, which would "wee" if you gave it a drink from a bottle.

I can remember going to meet the ship and clambering all over it. The life of a naval brat was fun in lots of ways, but also the stories of 30 foot waves, extreme cold, and of course the aircraft which sometimes didn't return. The ship was mentioned for it's bravery, although my father was marked out for keeping up morale, rather than great courage.