December 30, 2011

Two Hundred And Eight Days

I was in a good mood.

I was looking forward to Hogmanay.

I was feeling quite happy and in synch with the world.

Then I popped over to Tom's place to read his latest and I blew another gasket. Tom links to those nice folks over at the TPA and between them, they tell us the awful news: the thieving bastards want even more.

Those of us who are unlucky enough to be average will be spending TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT DAYS working for the government in 2012.

I have a short message for them:

(Image nicked from a Twitterite. I forget who, but thanks anyway).

The money you earn from 27th July to 31st December? You can keep that. You can manage all of your bills from that, surely? What else were you going to do with it? Pay off some debt? Improve the house? Buy clothes for the family? Take a holiday? Save some of it?

Time to wake up. Time to get real.

Your useless fucking government needs it.

To send aid to Brazil. To send aid to India. To send aid everyfuckingwhere.

They need it to replenish their wine cellar. To gold-plate their pensions. To pay outrageous salaries to chief cuntstables and local authority chiefs. To send to the bastard EU. To pay those feckless millions for not working. To pay for the stupid olympics. And a thousand other stupid things.

And some of you still wonder why I want to step run away from these irresponsible, unaccountable freaks?

Time to join me.

Time to starve the beast.

They can't waste it if you don't pay it to them.

Oh and by the way, Happy fucking New Year.



Mike said...

Oh, love it when you talk dirty

Captain Ranty said...


Not my fault. I have government tourettes.

Before this I was a mild mannered ignorant twonk.

I miss those days...

Hey, you're a bit boaty, perhaps you can tell us why matelots do not swear an oath to the monarch?

(The question was raised in the On Sovereignty comments).


Antony said...

The Royal Navy does not swear an oath to the monarch? Never knew that.

Nothing to do with Admiralty Law/law of the sea, is it?

Antony said...

In fact, aren't Navy bases named HMS Ranty, as opposed to Ranty Barracks or RAF Ranty?

Can it be something tied into any ship is already governed or covered by Law. I do know that it is the oldest service dating from the 16th Century and was a standing Navy Royal, with its own secretariat, dockyards and a permanent core of purpose-built warships, was created in the 16th century during the reign of Henry VIII, and thus owned by the monarch.

However, armies were raised when needed from the nobles private armies, and therefore allegiance was to the Nobles and Barons, and not the monarch.

Can it stem from this theory and have never changed?

NewsboyCap said...


I'm probably wrong but I thought the RN were the only one of the Armed Forces who do swear an Oath to the Monarch. Senior Service and all that, formed before Parliament was created. The only full time force. The Army was mobilized as and when it was needed, they swear an Oath to the Crown

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Actually CR neither 'DID' the Army.
I have served in BOTH and cannot remember swearing an oath in either.
It may be in the documents one signs but other than that the ' I promise to .. never passed my lips while I served in either.
Straight up.
As a scout - or rather a CUB I did but then I was a spotty youth who pretty did much as I was told.

Totally unrelated and un-solicited.
The thing about the Navy, in my opinion, is not true about the homo thing, THAT would be THE 'ARMY' I am afraid and I have first hand knowledge. I spent four years each in both and the GAY thing is RIFE in the 'ARMY'.
Don't know why I say this but it just need to be corrected. :-)

Namaste, rev;

Mike said...

Me Mum told me never to fucking swear but then she also said "Be sure to wear clean knickers, just in case..."

So now I keep me fucking clean knickers in me case..well you never know....

Pete said...

The Royal Navy do not swear an oath as they are not established under the Armed Forces Act 1996 (which prescribes the oath), being established instead under the Royal Prerogative.

Antony said...

I was in the Army and remember swearing an oath in the Careers Office before leaving for Basic. We got a certificate and everything. Its still on my Mum's wall.

Antony said...

Oh, and joined in '89 so before the 1996 Act.

del said...

Yep, do agree capt, HMRC has had nothing from me for 11 years, and neither has the spanish gov, they can all get fooked :)

Pete said...

This might break it down a bit:

No oath of allegiance is sworn by members of the Royal Navy, which is not maintained under an Act of Parliament but by the royal prerogative, or by Royal Marines officers, who unlike their Army counterparts are not enlisted before they are commissioned.

The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. The only Service that does not swear allegiance is Britain's Royal Navy, because it was formed by a Monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, and not by Parliament, and its allegiance is therefore implicit in its very existence

Pete said...

I have found some articles that state that the reason the Army has to swear an oath goes back to Cromwells time during the Civil War when troops joined fought against Charles 1st. After what was seen as a betrayal all soldiers then had to swear an oath to the monarch.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Ah, Ok Yes I recall the incident at the Army careers office.
'Twas a long time ago, over thirty years. Bugger me; but not in the navy :-) One gets that in the ARMY.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

according to and I must say I have to agree to what is being said here.

We need to get the ‘debt crisis’ in perspective. The table opposite (not displayed here)
_Japan 200***********
_____US 95*******
Germany 97******
_____UK 55***
shows UK debt relative to other major economies.

From 1918 to 1961 the UK national debt was over 100% of GDP. During that period the government introduced the welfare state, the NHS, state pensions, comprehensive education, built millions of council houses, and nationalised a range of industries. The public sector grew and there was economic growth.

Today, the coalition government wants to turn back the clock. It is set on dismantling the NHS and comprehensive education, and it is attacking the welfare state. It is not doing this because the country is on the verge of economic collapse, it is doing it because it is ideologically opposed to public services and the welfare state, and committed to handing over more of our public assets to big business.

Source www(dot)pcs(dot)org(dot)uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/there-is-an-alternative-the-case-against-cuts-in-public-spending(dot)cfm

Pete said...

Why the Army is not Royal (good thing me thinks!)

The English Civil Wars, 1642-1651

The English Civil War was actually a series of conflicts, and should really be seen as a British event, as there were few areas of the British Isles which were not in some way affected. A recent estimate suggests that there were as many as 250,000 war-related deaths in Britain during this period - a greater proportion of the population than the British dead of the First World War.

Many soldiers were employed on garrison duty, and saw little fighting. A large number never left their own counties. For those with the armies in the field however, the war meant frequent marches, cold, hunger, tiredness and disease, but above all, fear and confusion.

In 1653, Cromwell was made Lord Protector, and ruled England until his death in 1658. Although he would have liked to have done so, he was never able to dispense with the army created in 1645 which had ultimately brought him to power. In 1660 General George Monk, Cromwell's commander in Scotland, used the military forces under his control to restore Charles II to the throne.

Charles II was the first English monarch to maintain a standing army in peacetime. It might be worth mentioning why there is no such entity as the "Royal Army". The accepted reason for this is that the Army's current structure and ethos descends directly from Cromwell's New Model Army, which was the first properly established professional land warfare force. Its association with the Parliamentarians and the Commonwealth Interregnum meant that the Army (as an entity) was not considered worthy of the sobriquet "Royal", although individual regiments or corps may carry the title.

(Then why do we not swear an oath to parliament, only to the Monarch, Officers and those others appointed above us?)

Thus the "Royal Tank Regiment" or "The Royal Green Jackets" are regiments within the British Army. Ironically, of those troops closest to the Crown (the Foot Guards Regiments of infantry and the mounted soldiers of the Household Cavalry Regiment), only one element has "Royal" in its title; this is the "Blues and Royals", who were formed by an amalgamation of the Royal Horse Guards and the Royal Dragoons (who were a senior line cavalry regiment before amalgamation into the Household Division).

Stealthy new year said...

Lol Happy New Year Rantus :-)

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Stealthy!

Thanks Pete for the added info. I swore my oath at the Careers Office. I took the "Queens Shilling". In 1979 it was £97.20. My weekly wage at the time was £36 so it was a fortune.

I got this email this morning.

Thought you'd all be interested:


I have just re-read “When the Queen Was Crowned” by Brian Barker who was Gold stick Commander at the Coronation. It is a detailed description of the Coronation in 1953, plus much of earlier precedents set at earlier Coronations, plus some highlights from the Liber Regalis which sets down the form of the Ceremony by which we “consecrate and elect” our Sovereigns, as it says. However the system of government which was ours under a Constitutional Monarch, and much admired and copied through-out the world, has been surreptitiously replaced by what is now referred to as a Parliamentary Democracy. There is no chance that any Coronation to equal that of 1953 will be possible in the future. Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the last in the line of British Kings and Queens. A line which dates from Edgar the Peaceful in 973. With Scotland fully independent next year, if Salmond has his way, there will not even be a United Kingdom as a State within the EU. They will have to think up a new name. Since the War the destruction of the Empire and Commonwealth has been completed and now the destruction of the Mother Country is almost complete. The German military dictum, that goes “He who would conquer Europe must first subdue the French. isolate and neutralise the British but in particular the English. Only then may he move towards the east”, will have succeeded."

Any thoughts?


coz said...

I think it's time for a drink.

Anonymous said...

The solution.....
If the govt spends more than the tax take in any financial year lock up the entire cabinet, sequestrate all of their assets, throw their families into sink estates with a high percentage of somalians. We have far too many laws, but I'd like to see my idea enshrined into law.

Anonymous said...


I have a piece of video, recorded last year, in which a Govt Minister/MP states ' we take your money by force'. He said this with reference to Govt having to be accountable to the people because it takes our money 'by force'. Can't this, plus the evidence of blatant robbery/enslavement in your article, be used as reason/evidence for non payment of tax?


Happy New Year to you to. Let this be the year that Lawful Rebellion and saying no has a massive impact on starving the beast.

wayne said...

Loved the rant mate, Happy New Year to you too.

nominedeus said...

Happy feckin nu Yaaar Cap'n, couldn't agree more m8!