Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

The diplomatic failings went back through successive governments, probably into the 50s.
To some extent, yes...but it was Ridley that failed to get the islanders or tory backwoodsmen to back his sale & leaseback policy.
 
It's not like there's an approval procedure to go through to be 'allowed' to commit genocide, is there? They tend to just fucking do it.

It was being argued earlier that the Brits were morally in the wrong because the Argentinian soldiers were conscripts (they weren't all conscripts, but let's ignore that). You'd agree that an army should be stopped from doing bad shit when ordered, even if they're conscripts?
 
It was being argued earlier that the Brits were morally in the wrong because the Argentinian soldiers were conscripts (they weren't all conscripts, but let's ignore that). You'd agree that an army should be stopped from doing bad shit when ordered, even if they're conscripts?
wasn't it actually being argued that Prince Nonce was morally wrong, not the cannon fodder who were aggressively recruited from the poorest areas, just like they are now and always have been? Prince Nonce could have sat at home and done nowt. He wasn't an infantryman who saw few options to earn a living but join the army
 
But they weren't being unreasonable.
Well, that's debatable, but evidently the FO had not put in sufficient preparatory 'legwork' into winning hearts & minds for the reasonable leaseback proposals. Would have saved many lives.
 
Well, that's debatable, but evidently the FO had not put in sufficient preparatory 'legwork' into winning hearts & minds for the reasonable leaseback proposals.

What would the legwork have been? How would you have convinced the islanders that falling under Galteiri's rule in a few year's time was fine and dandy? The "reasonable proposals" were rejected by Argentina.
 
Ahhh, the old U75 ''private soldiers are all from economically disadvantaged backgrounds" schtik!

It's utter tosh, btw.
Yes, there's no evidence to support the belief because that sort of information is not formally collected as part of the application process. There are some limited studies referred to in this article House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence which do bear out the general hypothesis.
 
To the regiment!!!

It's always fun when the old brigade wax lyrical about the glory days of Thatcher's/Blair's* Super Army Soldiers when they were a bulwark against fascism, etc, etc...

*Delete as appropriate
 
Yes, there's no evidence to support the belief because that sort of information is not formally collected as part of the application process. There are some limited studies referred to in this article House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence which do bear out the general hypothesis.
An interesting read which certainly doesn't bear out OU's "cannon fodder" theory. This bit especially "30% of all recruits were exceptionally motivated and qualified young people who had wanted to join the Army for a long time" explodes it. Be interested to hear kebabking's opinion.
 
I'm guessing the agreement with Epstein would've been worded along the lines of '... in full and final settlement of this and any future claims against Epstein and/or any other person, arising from or relating to the facts alleged by Guiffre in these proceedings.' It'd then be a matter for the court to decide whether that wording encompasses the subject matter of the current claim. The Sweatless One might be able to avail himself of it without admitting anything, on purely procedural grounds. The 'optics' would be awful, but, to be honest, they already are; from his perspective, at least it'd protect him financially, not open him up to US criminal proceedings, and allow him to avoid some pretty uncomfortable questioning. If it fails, he can still argue a jurisdiction point. After that, he'll have little choice but to ignore proceedings and allow judgement in default, and fight any attempt at enforcement in the UK.

I know there are several more pages I haven’t read yet. But if this is what his lawyers think. Why don’t they want to you know have it opened and read. Why just presume it might say that but we don’t want you to open it to check.

Because I suspect it was drawn tighter than you suggest. And it offers him no such indemnity. Also how in forcible with such a broad agreement be anyway. Rhetorical question. I know what I think is the truth of the matter.
 
An interesting read which certainly doesn't bear out OU's "cannon fodder" theory. This bit especially "30% of all recruits were exceptionally motivated and qualified young people who had wanted to join the Army for a long time" explodes it. Be interested to hear kebabking's opinion.

Whereas '40% were joining as a last resort', probably because:

Educational background

The Army has a long tradition of working with Basic Skills (BS) needs among recruits. However, the increasingly competitive labour market and the need for a multi-skilled workforce capable of responding flexibly to changing demands and roles have brought the Army's BS issues into sharper focus in recent years. Latest Army research suggests that up to 50% of all recruits joining the Service have literacy or numeracy skills at levels at or below those expected of an 11 year old (ie Entry Level 3 or below). This is broadly comparable with the recent national Skills for Life survey conducted by DfES (October 2003).
 
Whereas '40% were joining as a last resort', probably because:

Educational background

The Army has a long tradition of working with Basic Skills (BS) needs among recruits. However, the increasingly competitive labour market and the need for a multi-skilled workforce capable of responding flexibly to changing demands and roles have brought the Army's BS issues into sharper focus in recent years. Latest Army research suggests that up to 50% of all recruits joining the Service have literacy or numeracy skills at levels at or below those expected of an 11 year old (ie Entry Level 3 or below). This is broadly comparable with the recent national Skills for Life survey conducted by DfES (October 2003).


It's a damning indictment of the DfE that so many kids leave school with naff all learned, doss around for a bit, drift in to the forces and discover they are not thick as they were told by school, thickos don't service helicopters, fix tanks, lead troops on night hikes over rough terrain. It is the saviour of many youngsters in this country, regardless of how many people the same politicos who fucked up the education system demand it goes and kills elsewhere. Ire, as always needs aiming at Westminster.
 
I know there are several more pages I haven’t read yet. But if this is what his lawyers think. Why don’t they want to you know have it opened and read. Why just presume it might say that but we don’t want you to open it to check.

Because I suspect it was drawn tighter than you suggest. And it offers him no such indemnity. Also how in forcible with such a broad agreement be anyway. Rhetorical question. I know what I think is the truth of the matter.
I expect they want to rely on it in these proceedings, but for the contents not to be made public, because that'd be a breach of the protective order in the other proceedings. I suspect they know what's in it, and will try to persuade the court that it effectively bars these proceedings, but that will be a matter for the court to interpret.
 
An interesting read which certainly doesn't bear out OU's "cannon fodder" theory. This bit especially "30% of all recruits were exceptionally motivated and qualified young people who had wanted to join the Army for a long time" explodes it. Be interested to hear kebabking's opinion.
Anecdote doesn't equal data and all that, but an ex was a squaddie who was exceptionally motivated and had wanted to join the army for a long time... because he'd been in the army cadets in a working class area of Salford while he was in high school. He signed up as a school leaver, ended up serving in Desert Storm and unfortunately some of his comrades in arms didn't make it back. So, yeah, infantry, young cannon fodder.

And also my own daughter wanted to join, started off in the army cadets as a teenager when she was staying with my sister who was a manager of a NAAFI store on an army base, she got me to sign the paperwork so that she could join up under the age of 18. I didn't want to, of course, but figured she'd never forgive me if I stood in the way and prevented her. But then she got rejected because of having an ADHD diagnosis. They still let her join the TA though and she was trying to get in through the side door that way. She was exceptionally motivated too, albeit a trained chef, although in the TA she was doing something with Signals.

There will be lots of young army cadets who are exceptionally motivated to join the army.

Also, those who join via university sponsorship will be 'exceptionally motivated' too, by the army paying their tuition fees and living expenses so they don't end up about £50k in debt, and they will probably have wanted to join for a long time too, because it was probably a career path planned via army cadets as a teenager.

'exceptionally motivated and wanted to join for a long time' still encompasses a lot of young people who were recruited by the army targeting young people from deprived areas, including those who'd been indoctrinated by army cadets.
 
Back
Top Bottom