Blog powered by Typepad

« Damn! It's a 'Good News' day today. | Main | Krauthammer Krows! »

Thursday, 14 October 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Since I'm unsure that your use of the term "service units" wouldn't be an equivalent of our American term, "administrative units" or "logistics units" I'll leave the obvious snide remark aside.

I'm also uncertain whether this individual's, er, preferences played any role in this particular set of circumstances - but I do question his motive. If, it turns out, "preferences" played any part, I don't think I could bring myself to allow even the closeted queer admittance to serving in an admin capacity.

Why not just people be people. If they are tough enough and willing to do the job then let them do it. If there are issues with their mates let them work it out amongst themselves. It really doesn't matter if one is gay or straight. They only thing that matters is performance and I have personally served with gays that I would have much preferred to have at my side when it got tough than any number of straight jerks I have had the displeasure of serving with.

I think the navy phrase was actually "rum, sodomy, and the lash", but never mind.

I've also heard them say that women are all right but it's not like the real thing.

Alas, JK, treachery for whatever reason is not confined to homosexuals.

FM! What's a nice man like you doing in a place like this? The point I was trying to make is that in your average infantry platoon there is usually a very heavy, in all meanings of the word, element who do care very much if you're queer. Quite apart from the physical risk to the homosexuals concerned, there is also the major disruptions which will, in this very litigious age, erupt with accusations of, at the very least, homophobia. As a result, otherwise excellent soldiers will be punished or dismissed and within platoons personal loyalties will be divided. Hardly the sort of atmosphere you would desire in an FOB up the sharp end of Afghanistan!

Peter, welocme to D&N. As always, Churchill had his own way of saying things! I will not be drawn on your last remark lest my old e-pal, JK, from 'over there' takes umbrage, or even worse, attempts to spell out the difference!

Here I come with my (ridiculously poor) results concerning the 'gugga' word. I do so mainly because I cannot stand the idea of your sleepless nights, with the question pounding again and again in your head, and all by my fault.
So, lets see.
It seems that the allied foreign troups camped in South East England at the beggining of WWII were given acronyms. In this way,and refering to the canadian ones, the British Columbia Dragoons (BCS) were the Better Class Drinkers, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Piss Pot Cleaners and Letrine Inspectors and the Governor General's Horse Guards regiment, the Gugga Huggas.
It also seems that in a Punch of 1917, the word gugga is used in the sense of barmy. But it is 1917 not 1942.
That's all. Of course, nothing of the above answers the initial question.
And, to make it worse, this very little information has been obtained through the internet, wich means that most probably it is all bollocks.
Anyhow, thanks again for your attention. And have a sound sleep.

Pheeew! Thank God for that, Ortega, and well done for your intrepid searches.

Yes, the British do have a habit of making fun with acronyms - I love the 'Gugga Huggas'! I suppose the current word 'gaga', meaning barmy, might well be derived from 'gugga' although it doesn't say so in my OED which gives the origin as "Early 20th century, from French."

Anyway, I'm off to bed . . .!

The comments to this entry are closed.