Back Into Uniform – Good or bad idea ?

Moderator Message

Pete Truman, sealordlawrence……… please check your PMs.

Thanks

GA

In the late 1960s, I and an RN officer seconded to the aerospace company were I worked both had to attend two meetings in a single day – one at the MoD, and the other at a subcontractor’s premises. When we were travelling to the MoD, he was in uniform, but before we left the MoD, he nipped off the the toilet and re-energed in ‘civvies’.

Realising why he’d been carrying a holdall as well as a briefcase, I asked why he didn’t just stay in uniform and avoid lugging the holdall.

Not allowed, was his response. At this morning’s meeting I represented the Navy. This afternoon, I’ll be representing your company.

He explained that the policy (at that time) was that when off-base, officers wore uniform only if on official duties. This had nothing to do with terrorism; it was so that other ranks travelling in uniform would not be required to salute the officer.

According to him, this was part of a move to cut down on ‘bull’.

You are twisting my words again.

As you are perfectly well aware, I was expressing my own views rather than commenting on yours.

However, feel free to take artificial offence if you derive some form of gratification from it. Be my guest.

I, for my part, have more pressing demands on my time. 😉

I can’t see it happening somehow. In my 22+ years of army life I can assure you the first thing we wanted to do after work was to get into civvies.

It looks like we’ll have to agree to differ, then.

I simply cannot accept that there are valid degrees of differentiation between indefensible crimes against innocent civilians.

You are twisting my words again. I never said there was ‘valid degrees of differentiation between indefensible crimes against innocent civilians.’ My posts make that perfectly clear on multiple occasions.

I too like gray area got a bit too close for comfort to an attack albeit not a solder but a police officers in uniform in 92.
So my views i stick by. Our people in uniform do a tough enough job as it is with out the added pressure of being on public show because that’s what it is ,a show.

In which case you need to ask very serious questions about the state of UK society. Uniformed personnel in a democracy are servants to the state not its decision makers.

I too like gray area got a bit too close for comfort to an attack albeit not a solder but a police officers in uniform in 92.
So my views i stick by. Our people in uniform do a tough enough job as it is with out the added pressure of being on public show because that’s what it is ,a show.

I grew up on military camps, so seeing ruperts and squaddies walking around in uniform does not strike me as unfamiliar or strange for that reason.

I personaly don’t see anything wrong with it. On the rare occasion I do see someone in uniform out and about I generaly acknowledge them with a friendly nod and a smile.

I for one would welcome the sight of more uniforms on our streets and towns it gives you a sense of security. Strange as that may sound.

If this forum is anything to go by i think the public will be split on this one.

My personal feeling is its a bad idea, It will make the person in uniform a target for anybody with a grudge and i don’t just mean terrorists, Turning up in a lot of pubs in uniform would make you a target for any stupid thug who thinks its great to “take on a army guy”, Also i would not want to see anybody in uniform drinking heavily etc, For me its better that anyone in the services is able to leave there “Job” behind them when they are on leave.

What i would much rather see is home coming parades for troops, Days where the public can meet the troops and for the government to subsidise a discount card for everybody in the services that can be use in shops, pubs resturants etc.

My point was and is that the IRA’s efforts to maintain some sort of focus against military and establishment targets seperates them from the terrorists that the UK Islamic community has produced so far as they have not even attempted such a focus.

It looks like we’ll have to agree to differ, then.

I simply cannot accept that there are valid degrees of differentiation between indefensible crimes against innocent civilians.

It was not a comment, it was a question and a perfectly reasonable one at that. I’d be interested to know the answer, but I’ll understand if you’d rather not provide one.

It obviously was and the answer is simple, a dead person is dead, there are not any variations.

Neither is blowing up a Remembrance Day parade or devastating the shopping district of a city at peak shopping time on a Saturday. What’s the difference, and what’s the difference between the scum that can do such things?

I never said such attacks were justifiable, although in the case of the remembrance day parade the issue becomes confused if the target is serving military personnel taking part in the parade.

I never said that was acceptable, of course the subject becomes more complex if those taking taking part are serving military personnel
Common ground at last! Do you accept, then, that such attacks can never be justified whoever the perpetrator and whatever the espoused reason?

You have completely missed the point. I never said such attack weres acceptable. My point was and is that the IRA’s efforts to maintain some sort of focus against military and establishment targets seperates them from the terrorists that the UK Islamic community has produced so far as they have not even attempted such a focus.

I deeply resent that comment.

It was not a comment, it was a question and a perfectly reasonable one at that. I’d be interested to know the answer, but I’ll understand if you’d rather not provide one.

However putting a bomb on underground train to kill a whole bunch of people for living under a government they probably never voted for is not legitimate.

Neither is blowing up a Remembrance Day parade or devastating the shopping district of a city at peak shopping time on a Saturday. What’s the difference, and what’s the difference between the scum that can do such things?

However attacks against UK civilians I would suggest were never acceptable.

Common ground at last! Do you accept, then, that such attacks can never be justified whoever the perpetrator and whatever the espoused reason?

The Irish problem started with Religion, ended up as kill a brit for sport.
Replace Irish with Iraqi and Brit for yank.

There is so much wrong with that statement that I dont know where to start.

1) The US has not been attacked by a domestic Islamic terrorist, by all accounts the Islamic community in the US is well intigerated, prosperous, moderate and content……..very different from the UK.

2) The anti American insurgency in Iraq has very few roots in religion (the highly active AQ/AQI element being an obvious exception), that insurgency is related to US incompetence, to cut a long story short they took an oppressed state an turned it into a failed state. Understandably the people of that state got rather upset. Now the Sunni/Shia sectarian conflict is religious but was stirred up mostly by AQI and was not present to any great extent at the time of the invasion, again though it is down to US incompetence.

3) Now if you want your statement to hold any truth keep the Brit part and replace Irish with militant British Muslim.

Oh yes he was. Commons and Peers, as politicians, may very well be untrustworthy, crooked, self-regarding verminous pismires but they’re still civilians. :p

If they are mere civilians, I am anointed by God.
I retire now, with my word count increased by one. Pismire. Ant Pee. Never seen it spelt before, but when I’ve heard it I assumed it was spelt something like myre…..which it’s root is.
I’ll work it into a memo tomorrow 🙂

……now where’s that No2 uniform…..

That is your perception, not objective fact. Show me where I accused you of racism, please.

If it was not your intention then I apologise but it certainly came across that way.

Apart from a large number of individual murders, both military and civilian, Irish terrorists blew up private homes, crowded pubs, gas storage depots close to towns, Remembrance Day services, busy shopping centres and business districts. You do seem to have a rather strange concept of “conventional military operations”, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Free Derry, sniper operations against British troops and the killing of serving personnel, for better or worse all are conventional. Sure they did terrorism too but they attempted where they could to undertake conventional operations.

Were the victims of these atrocities, in your opinion, any less dead and the survivors any less traumatised, than those in the awful tube and bus bombings in London or the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon?

I deeply resent that comment.

If so, why? If not, then why do you persist in claiming that there is a difference?

Becouse to an extent there is, explained above.

No urban terrorism is legitimate. The various excuses and rationales expounded for such actions are, therefore, irrelevant.

Urban terrorism is not a legitimate phrase, it covers far too much ground. Now an insurgent who attacks a police station is arguably legitimate, I would still regard him as my enemy and seek to kill him as such but I would regard his actions as legitimate. However putting a bomb on underground train to kill a whole bunch of people for living under a government they probably never voted for is not legitimate. Now I will go further with this, there is of course a cut of point, if you are an oppressed mass in an authoritarian country (hypothetically Zimbabwe) then the attack on the police station is justifiable as it is the control aparatus of the state you are trying to remove. However if youlive in a true democracy (as the UK is) and you are opposed to a policy of that government you do not have a right to attack it. If you are opposed to a policy in a true democracy you vote against the party that supports it, if that party still wins it is your responsibility to accept that. Now the early motivations of the Irish troubles have justifiable motivations, after all there was a near apartheid social structure in place their. However attacks against UK civilians I would suggest were never acceptable.

Surely you do not believe that there are legitimate forms of urban terrorism? That there are circumstances in which it is acceptable or justified to kill and maim innocent civilians going about their daily business?

I cannot believe that this could be the case!

Explained above.

Guido Fawkes. He wasn’t after civvies.

Oh yes he was. Commons and Peers, as politicians, may very well be untrustworthy, crooked, self-regarding verminous pismires but they’re still civilians. :p

………On topic. An ex flyer up above mentioned they are not allowed in the pub in uniform. Is this related to the fact that there could be a perception that you have one too many and then go and look after safety critical kit?
This all started with the British Rail incident back in 1980 (ish) I think, where a Train driver had had a beer at lunch, then had an accident. IIRC he had only one beer, but Mr Public saw him in the pub and all PR hell was let loose.

I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I’m sure that kind of thinking plays a part.

That is your perception, not objective fact. Show me where I accused you of racism, please.

Apart from a large number of individual murders, both military and civilian, Irish terrorists blew up private homes, crowded pubs, gas storage depots close to towns, Remembrance Day services, busy shopping centres and business districts. You do seem to have a rather strange concept of “conventional military operations”, if you don’t mind me saying so. By the way, Northern Ireland was still part of the UK the last time I checked. :p

Were the victims of these atrocities, in your opinion, any less dead and the survivors any less traumatised, than those in the awful tube and bus bombings in London or the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon?

If so, why? If not, then why do you persist in claiming that there is a difference?

No urban terrorism is legitimate. The various excuses and rationales expounded for such actions are, therefore, irrelevant.

Surely you do not believe that there are legitimate forms of urban terrorism? That there are circumstances in which it is acceptable or justified to kill and maim innocent civilians going about their daily business?

I cannot believe that this could be the case!

Guido Fawkes. He wasn’t after civvies.

Your post was clearly intended to insinuate that I held racist beliefs.:mad:

Irish terrorist at least attempted a veneer of military operations in the conventional (I regard Guerilla attacks as conventional) sense. The UK’s home based terrorists do not do this.

Religion here is vitally important, it is the foundation of the belief structure that legitimises and inspires Islamic terrorism.

The Irish problem started with Religion, ended up as kill a brit for sport.
Replace Irish with Iraqi and Brit for yank.

On topic. An ex flyer up above mentioned they are not allowed in the pub in uniform. Is this related to the fact that there could be a perception that you have one too many and then go and look after safety critical kit?
This all started with the British Rail incident back in 1980 (ish) I think, where a Train driver had had a beer at lunch, then had an accident. IIRC he had only one beer, but Mr Public saw him in the pub and all PR hell was let loose.

Your post was clearly intended to insinuate that I held racist beliefs.:mad:

That is your perception, not objective fact. Show me where I accused you of racism, please.

Irish terrorist at least attempted a veneer of military operations in the conventional (I regard Guerilla attacks as conventional) sense. The UK’s home based terrorists do not do this

Apart from a large number of individual murders, both military and civilian, Irish terrorists blew up private homes, crowded pubs, gas storage depots close to towns, Remembrance Day services, busy shopping centres and business districts. You do seem to have a rather strange concept of “conventional military operations”, if you don’t mind me saying so. By the way, Northern Ireland was still part of the UK the last time I checked. :p

Were the victims of these atrocities, in your opinion, any less dead and the survivors any less traumatised, than those in the awful tube and bus bombings in London or the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon?

If so, why? If not, then why do you persist in claiming that there is a difference?

Religion here is vitally important, it is the foundation of the belief structure that legitimises and inspires Islamic terrorism.

No urban terrorism is legitimate. The various excuses and rationales expounded for such actions are, therefore, irrelevant.

Surely you do not believe that there are legitimate forms of urban terrorism? That there are circumstances in which it is acceptable or justified to kill and maim innocent civilians going about their daily business?

I cannot believe that this could be the case!