what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[Pingu]

but they didn't send them home, after they found out their age and they din't bother doing anyhting much to check.

i do know my great grandfather joined the navy 2 years before he was supposed to have signed up. got his aunt to sign something to say he was old enough.

different age. different viewpoint. one which we see differently today
not exactly a direct comparison but when they used to burn witches at the stake it wasnt a punishment. they genuinely thought they were being merciful and cleansing the soul. its hard to look at different periods in time with the values we have today.

 

[Sasaferrato]

have you had a look at the wording of this oath?

As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

 

[coley]

As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

Bugger, yours is the same as mine

 

[brogdale]

As I write I have sitting on my desk, the New Testament which was holding at the time, on 14th December 1976 in Inverness.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

Not possible for atheists/ignostics, republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Not really. Coming from a big family with many paternal generations in the military, I'm aware that a lot of village memorials, on Remembrance Day, don't have any ceremonial, just remembrance. No civic dignitaries or pompous speeches, no public ceremony.
The village my dad was born in, in north Norfolk, has a churchyard in which stands a memorial to the dead of The Great War. It has 8 names on it, but all of them are remembered, because their surnames are still alive in the area. One of them was my grandmother's brother - he would have been my great-uncle, if he'd lived. We don't remember him and the others because we're nationalists, or because we're shaping some kind of nationalist identity, we remember our dead because they are "ours", just as we remember "the dead" because we know that their loss, and their memory is the same as ours. The state might (and does) try to appropriate that sentiment for its' own purposes, and with the big civic Remembrance Day ceremonials, I'm sure they somewhat succeed, but they're not the be-all and end-all of Remembrance, they're just wankers trying to do exactly what you and I have both accused them of.

I remember:

One blown up in NI the day Mountbatten died.
One shot in NI.
One killed in an accident during training in Kenya.
Three killed in the Falklands.
One who committed suicide after the Falklands.
One who died of leukaemia.
One who died in a car accident.

They are 'ours' and always will be. People who shared your life in a way that not even a wife or child can.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Not possible for atheists/ignostics, republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?

As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.

 

[brogdale]

As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.

eh?

Does that mean you don't want to answer my question?

 

[cesare]

As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.

Catch yourself on.

 

[Sasaferrato]

eh?

Does that mean you don't want to answer my question?

It means that the possessor of more than two connected neurones, would realise that there is a different oath of loyalty for those of other religions, or indeed of no religious belief.

If ever a post demonstrated the wisdom of the old adage 'Better to remain silent...' it was that post of yours.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Catch yourself on.

Indeed. That too.

 

[brogdale]

It means that the possessor of more than two connected neurones, would realise that there is a different oath of loyalty for those of other religions, or indeed of no religious belief.

If ever a post demonstrated the wisdom of the old adage 'Better to remain silent...' it was that post of yours.

OK, thanks for that. I genuinely have no knowledge about matters military, and was taken aback to see such an apparently out-dated oath. So..you're saying that there is provision for the 'non-religious' to swear solemnly without mention of god. But what about the other things?

What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?

And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?

 

[DotCommunist]

well you are supposed to not obey an order you know to be illegal but I don't know how that squares with the oath.

 

[dylanredefined]

What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?

And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?

Just say the oath and stop being awkward would probably be the recruiting blokes answer.
Illegal orders are not to be obeyed.

 

[brogdale]

Just say the oath and stop being awkward would probably be the recruiting blokes answer.
Illegal orders are not to be obeyed.

Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.

e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...

To be effective on operations, the Army must act as a disciplined
force: commanders’ orders carried out, everybody confident that
they will not be let down by their comrades. Discipline is the
primary antidote to fear and maintains operational effectiveness:
it is supported by team loyalty, trust and professionalism. Discipline
instils self-control and breeds self-confidence. Good discipline
means that all soldiers will obey orders, under the worst conditions
of war, and to do so with imagination and resource. The best
discipline is self-discipline: innate, not imposed. The Army expects
self-discipline from every soldier, and training aims to strengthen it.
Discipline requires clearly understood rules and a military legal
system to enforce it. This discipline system must be fairly applied
both on and off duty by all those in positions of authority

 

[Pickman's model]

As they say in NI 'Catch on to yourself'.

"hands on cocks"

 

[LiamO]

http://undergroundmgzn.com/2014/11/11/tower-london-poppies-obliterated-machine-guns/

 

[coley]

Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.

e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...

Where does that suggest we obey unlawful orders?

 

[likesfish]

Well the army assumes people wont give illegal or blatently stupid orders
When orders like that are given things are explained civilly.

Examples
" no I cant drive that tanker I'm not a driver"
" actually thats turkish controlled cyprus sir what your proposing counts as an invasion sir "

 

[brogdale]

Well the army assumes people wont give illegal or blatently stupid orders
When orders like that are given things are explained civilly.

Examples
" no I cant drive that tanker I'm not a driver"
" actually thats turkish controlled cyprus sir what your proposing counts as an invasion sir "

Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "legal" between the words "all" and 'orders".

 

[dylanredefined]

Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.

e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...

Time and place. Most orders should be obeyed

Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "legal" between the words "all" and 'orders".

Probably inertia, they might change it when we get a King I guess.

 

[likesfish]

Because nobody loves a rules lawyer

 

[brogdale]

Because nobody loves a rules lawyer

No, no...I get that..but from the perspective of the worker, the institution is requiring the workforce to swear an oath that is incompatible with the actual demands of the job. Either way the worker/soldier can't win.

 

[Pingu]

No, no...I get that..but from the perspective of the worker, the institution is requiring the workforce to swear an oath that is incompatible with the actual demands of the job. Either way the worker/soldier can't win.[/QUOTE]

welcome to the world of the armed forces

 

[andysays]

Which makes complete sense, but leaves me wondering why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "legal" between the words "all" and 'orders".

Maybe that would be regarded as a bit "political"

 

[brogdale]

welcome to the world of the armed forces

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[brogdale]

Maybe that would be regarded as a bit "political"

I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!

 

[coley]

I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!

Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.

 

[andysays]

I know. It would, of course, introduce the very notion that the rank and file might have to apply thought or consideration to any given order; unthinkable!

Bad for discipline, as already covered in your quote above

 

[brogdale]

Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.

That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....

...and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.

How can anyone with any dignity swear that?

 

[dylanredefined]

That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....

How can anyone with any dignity swear that?

Well if you want to join you have to play by their rules.