Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 10:41:39 GMT
So some suaddies fired on an image of the labour leader. Big deal.
The daft and stupid thing they did was to post evidence on anti social media, dumb as but hardly worthy of bad condut dismissal.
Which they will probably get.
The armed forces are mostly conservative in mindset and electoral preference which is hardly a surprise and the current labour leader is facing a situation where his 'approval' rating is the lowest I can remember any political leader having but hammering these idiots for something that is pure prank is as much overkill as I can remember. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 3, 2019 10:54:18 GMT
No different to people burning effigies of Maggie etc. Inappropriate and stupid to post on social media but some of the language in the news is overkill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 3, 2019 11:05:19 GMT
Head shots as well. Well done.
Ridiculous overkill for something that requires nothing more than a stern dressing down by an NCO.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Apr 3, 2019 11:36:30 GMT
The US forces had targets with Bin Laden on them so whilst distasteful, there is no real issue in my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 12:14:39 GMT
Just so we're clear, I cannot abide Corbyn.
But as they seem to know they're being filmed and that the film includes clear imagery of the target, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if this goes public you are in trouble. Without that, it should perhaps have been a major private bollocking; but with it...
You can't film yourselves shooting an image of a possible head of your own state from the position of employed public service and not expect at least the possibility of being given the boot IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 3, 2019 12:23:53 GMT
Just so we're clear, I cannot abide Corbyn. You can't film yourselves shooting an image of a possible head of your own state from the position of employed public service and not expect at least the possibility of being given the boot IMO. Which would be a vast over reaction IMO. They're paratroopers on deployment in one of the most dangerous places on Earth. Time at the range gives them the chance to let off steam in a controlled environment. Who knows what targets were available, bean cans, Jeremy Corbyn posters, Spice Girls pop ups? I'd also love to know how you would go about proving which soldier shot at which targets. Personally I would just thank these people for being prepared to do the dirty work we would rather just sweep under the carpet and not think about - and often incur life-changing injuries whilst doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 3, 2019 12:39:00 GMT
it should perhaps have been a major private bollocking... Or perhaps a major bollocking privates...
...which is about as seriously as I intend to take this topic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 12:59:08 GMT
I'd go along with all the difficult job stuff if they hadn't filmed themselves. But they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 3, 2019 13:20:51 GMT
We have a saying in the military here (actually it applies to everywhere else really): You can do anything, but don't get caught.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 16:44:55 GMT
The bit I find deplorable is that they didn't take aim at the real thing and not just a photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Apr 3, 2019 20:22:24 GMT
Not the cleverest thing to film yourself doing this. But the way that some people have utterly over-reacted you'd think they'd actually fired at the real person. Just give them a bollocking and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 4, 2019 11:01:03 GMT
Not the cleverest thing to film yourself doing this. But the way that some people have utterly over-reacted you'd think they'd actually fired at the real person. Just give them a bollocking and move on. Agree. How many times have you seen celebrity pictures put on dart boards? The only real difference here is that some idiot filmed it and sent it to his mates. |
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Apr 5, 2019 9:19:56 GMT
Or burnt an effigy of the prime minister or Boris Johnson
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 9:31:31 GMT
I understand these thoughts, but in those contexts it is not a public sector employee acting in that capacity. If they'd done it out of uniform and in a non-MOD range, it would be rather different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 5, 2019 9:37:53 GMT
You say public sector employees like they are council office workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 9:43:53 GMT
I think that's your interpretation, Bob - what I am saying is not incorrect. I am OK with disagreeing on this subject, just pointing out what seems to me a difference between this case and people who throw darts at pictures or burn a political effigy as private citizens (however inappropriate).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 9:54:30 GMT
Or if they had not posted it, but, it is still something that should be dealt with within the unit. That the beeb and others showcased it and made it more than it really is demonstrates their desire to sensationalise news. Something out of nothing really. The image of a smiling bbc reporter to members of a unit returning from a conflict zone asking, "How does it feel to lose people out there"? Of course the reporters think it perfectly OK to do this but when will it stop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 5, 2019 10:10:43 GMT
I think that's your interpretation, Bob - what I am saying is not incorrect. I am OK with disagreeing on this subject, just pointing out what seems to me a difference between this case and people who throw darts at pictures or burn a political effigy as private citizens (however inappropriate). It is my interpretation, you're applying the same standards and logic to combatants in a warzone to those pushing paper around at your local tax office. Context is everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Apr 5, 2019 10:28:02 GMT
Massive over reaction, as always, from some of the press. Corbyn was on the radio, saying how he was "shocked" and that he hoped that they were identified and dealt with. Well, they will be. To be honest (and I can't stand Corbyn) had he said, "Daft lads larking about, I see the funny side of it but it's really not very professional posting it on social media. Let's move on." then maybe I'd respect that viewpoint. But to say he was shocked and be all so serious about it is really not very proportionate. As for their fate, my own opinion is that a severe bollocking would suffice but in this day and age (and in my line of work, certainly) it would likely mean dismissal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 5, 2019 10:39:27 GMT
Massive over reaction, as always, from some of the press. Corbyn was on the radio, saying how he was "shocked" and that he hoped that they were identified and dealt with. Well, they will be. To be honest (and I can't stand Corbyn) had he said, "Daft lads larking about, I see the funny side of it but it's really not very professional posting it on social media. Let's move on." then maybe I'd respect that viewpoint. But to say he was shocked and be all so serious about it is really not very proportionate. As for their fate, my own opinion is that a severe bollocking would suffice but in this day and age (and in my line of work, certainly) it would likely mean dismissal. Agree with this and Corbyn doesn't have the benefit of being from the snowflake generation, he's an old man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 11:09:02 GMT
I think that's your interpretation, Bob - what I am saying is not incorrect. I am OK with disagreeing on this subject, just pointing out what seems to me a difference between this case and people who throw darts at pictures or burn a political effigy as private citizens (however inappropriate). It is my interpretation, you're applying the same standards and logic to combatants in a warzone to those pushing paper around at your local tax office. Context is everything. I don't agree that because people are in the forces that they aren't capable of considering the consequences of their actions - I'd have thought that was a far more important trait in those who are actually armed. And yes, context is all - in a private shooting range and out of uniform, it's a different matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 5, 2019 11:11:03 GMT
Massive over reaction, as always, from some of the press. Corbyn was on the radio, saying how he was "shocked" and that he hoped that they were identified and dealt with. Well, they will be. To be honest (and I can't stand Corbyn) had he said, "Daft lads larking about, I see the funny side of it but it's really not very professional posting it on social media. Let's move on." then maybe I'd respect that viewpoint. But to say he was shocked and be all so serious about it is really not very proportionate. As for their fate, my own opinion is that a severe bollocking would suffice but in this day and age (and in my line of work, certainly) it would likely mean dismissal. I think it's symptomatic of how far we've distanced ourselves from the dirty side of wars. We want all our wars to be sanitized affairs, always conducted under the rules of warfare, no casualties on our side, and neatly finished with a conclusive ending. We forget we put these young people - who've all pledged to protect us with their lives, under extreme stress in situations they have no control over, and expect them always to behave in a logical, controlled manner. At the first moment where they may not uphold the high standards we expect of them we are prepared to discard them and destroy their career, when all that was required was a dressing down. People like JC make me sick. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Apr 5, 2019 12:12:40 GMT
Massive over reaction, as always, from some of the press. Corbyn was on the radio, saying how he was "shocked" and that he hoped that they were identified and dealt with. Well, they will be. To be honest (and I can't stand Corbyn) had he said, "Daft lads larking about, I see the funny side of it but it's really not very professional posting it on social media. Let's move on." then maybe I'd respect that viewpoint. But to say he was shocked and be all so serious about it is really not very proportionate. As for their fate, my own opinion is that a severe bollocking would suffice but in this day and age (and in my line of work, certainly) it would likely mean dismissal. I think it's symptomatic of how far we've distanced ourselves from the dirty side of wars. We want all our wars to be sanitized affairs, always conducted under the rules of warfare, no casualties on our side, and neatly finished with a conclusive ending. We forget we put these young people - who've all pledged to protect us with their lives, under extreme stress in situations they have no control over, and expect them always to behave in a logical, controlled manner. At the first moment where they may not uphold the high standards we expect of them we are prepared to discard them and destroy their career, when all that was required was a dressing down. People like JC make me sick. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or not then? I think the combat side of things is irrelevent. They have put themselves in the public eye acting in a manner likely to bring their employer into disrepute. That definitely needs some disciplinary action. What form that action takes is where the proportionality argument comes in but their actions should have some consequence. Just because they are squaddies shouldn't mean it's OK. Where do you draw the line on which jobs can be excused from this? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 5, 2019 13:00:12 GMT
I think it's symptomatic of how far we've distanced ourselves from the dirty side of wars. We want all our wars to be sanitized affairs, always conducted under the rules of warfare, no casualties on our side, and neatly finished with a conclusive ending. We forget we put these young people - who've all pledged to protect us with their lives, under extreme stress in situations they have no control over, and expect them always to behave in a logical, controlled manner. At the first moment where they may not uphold the high standards we expect of them we are prepared to discard them and destroy their career, when all that was required was a dressing down. People like JC make me sick. Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable or not then? I think the combat side of things is irrelevent. They have put themselves in the public eye acting in a manner likely to bring their employer into disrepute. That definitely needs some disciplinary action. What form that action takes is where the proportionality argument comes in but their actions should have some consequence. Just because they are squaddies shouldn't mean it's OK. Where do you draw the line on which jobs can be excused from this? See post 3. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 14:24:21 GMT
In ordinary situations it is a daft thing to do and putting it online more so. In a posting where you may very well not see the end of each day even JC should be able to show some common sense but then, when have mp's been guilty of that. Joking and taking shots at a picture are methods of dealing with extreme stress and fatigue. A couple of extra duties and maybe a small unit fine with a stern warning to show better judgement is all this calls for. I wonder just who got the news people involved though.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 5, 2019 18:21:47 GMT
JC is publically known to hate the military. I don't see a problem at all with what they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Apr 5, 2019 20:08:01 GMT
JC is publically known to hate the military. I don't see a problem at all with what they did. They're from my old unit. We did far worse things than that, back in the day. No names, no pack drill (and NO cameras) back then of course! |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 6, 2019 19:05:37 GMT
JC is publically known to hate the military. I don't see a problem at all with what they did. They're from my old unit. We did far worse things than that, back in the day. No names, no pack drill (and NO cameras) back then of course! They just broke rule number 1: “whatever you do, don’t get caught!” |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 6, 2019 20:05:27 GMT
In my opinion they’re carrying out perfectly legitimate Training in killing a person that is a serious threat to national security.
In case you need reminding in the ‘70s when labour were slightly less socialist than the current leader of HM Opposition there was a unit permanently ready to helicopter The Royal Family out of danger at the first sign of socialism taking a violent turn. On a level more personal to members of the armed forces this is a man (well, loosely a man) that has sided with terrorist organisations that have specifically targeted and continue to offer a threat to their and their families’ well being.
He should be an official MoD target range face.
|
|
