what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[Sasaferrato]

Shame really, I would have been interested to hear your views...but never mind.

If you put your questions in a neutral manner, then it is appreciated that information is being sought. Your questions are not put in a neutral manner, they are put in a very partisan way, which, understandably puts people's backs up.

It is, of course up, to you how you frame your questions; but, if you are genuinely seeking information/informed opinion, you may care to have a look at some of the 'questions' you have asked on this thread and 're-ask' in a more mannerly way. The ex-forces people on this thread are far from stupid, and really don't appreciate being hectored, and spoken to as if they are idiots.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.

I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.

 

[Sasaferrato]

How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists".

I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...

Indeed.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.

leaving human eyeballs on the ground

 

[8ball]

I'm more than slightly troubled about drone strikes. The situation on the ground can be very fluid, and without human eyeballs observing directly, there is scope for tragedy, as has already happened.

It's also very convenient for politicians - under the guise of "protecting our boys" they get to:

i) Continue to safeguard the profits of the Arms industry
ii) Make military action more politically expedient by limiting both the kinds of pictures that come back of the aftermath and damaging media portrayal of body bags coming home
iii) Alienate the Forces from the act of killing (a successful strike is called a 'bug splat' in their jargon)
iv) Sanitise the public appreciation of what war means to the level of something akin to pest control and in doing so, dehumanize their victims

These are probably bullet points on a sales spreadsheet at an Arms Fair somewhere...

 

[likesfish]

Some of those drone strikes are usaf close support actions.
Yemen and pakistan tend to be the CIA spook affairs

 

[brogdale]

If you put your questions in a neutral manner, then it is appreciated that information is being sought. Your questions are not put in a neutral manner, they are put in a very partisan way, which, understandably puts people's backs up.

It is, of course up, to you how you frame your questions; but, if you are genuinely seeking information/informed opinion, you may care to have a look at some of the 'questions' you have asked on this thread and 're-ask' in a more mannerly way. The ex-forces people on this thread are far from stupid, and really don't appreciate being hectored, and spoken to as if they are idiots.

I really don't see what you're on about Sas.

Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.

Those things aside, my opening contribution to the thread was, what I perceive to be a "neutral" question posed in a perfectly "mannerly" way. It was this....

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

To which you replied....

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

Thereafter I've seen a few "unmannerly" replies to my questions about the oath and it's implications for the armed forces....including....

Only those who have never served, ergo haven't a fucking clue.

I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?

Some here are losing the plot.

You are getting into fantasy land now

most of the oath takers ... would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.

Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.

I don't find you cohesive, challenging or even interesting, sorry.

Your lack of comprehension is worse than I suspected

...can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives

mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda

...so you'll understand if I politely decline to take any advice about my posting style; thanks.

Seen in the round, I'd say that those speaking as ex-forces appear overly defensive when questioned about the oath and its possible implications. Shame, really.

 

[coley]

I really don't see what you're on about Sas.

Since when was it necessary to post "neutral", "non-partisan" questions In P&P? And if you think any of my posting has "hectored" or implied "stupidity" and "idiocy", you'd be able to support that by pointing out where exactly.

Those things aside, my opening contribution to the thread was, what I perceive to be a "neutral" question posed in a perfectly "mannerly" way. It was this....


To which you replied....


Thereafter I've seen a few "unmannerly" replies to my questions about the oath and it's implications for the armed forces....including....










...so you'll understand if I politely decline to take any advice about my posting style; thanks.

Seen in the round, I'd say that those speaking as ex-forces appear overly defensive when questioned about the oath and its possible implications. Shame, really.

No, you got perfectly thought through answers,then, I suspect after your claim the RAF would without question shoot an airliner out of the sky to protect the royals, people started to lose patience and doubt your credibility.
Ask whatever questions you choose, make them direct questions, then you might get direct answers

Just remember even us thick squaddies know the difference between unlawful and illegal.
But remember also that interpretations of the above can be coloured by circumstances.

IE, Brogdale is coming towards me armed with a copy of the guardian and a concerned look on his face I would step aside and offer a casual greeting.
Scores of Brogdales are running towards me armed with sharp implements and a deeply concerned look on their faces, I would look for an avenue of escape, should there not be one available, I would fix bayonets. Should that not give them pause I would initially shoot to wound the leader of the mob, should that not stop their advance I would use the remainder of my ammunition to kill the ringleaders.

 

[brogdale]

No, you got perfectly thought through answers,then, I suspect after your claim the RAF would without question shoot an airliner out of the sky to protect the royals, people started to lose patience and doubt your credibility.
Ask whatever questions you choose, make them direct questions, then you might get direct answers

Just remember even us thick squaddies know the difference between unlawful and illegal.
But remember also that interpretations of the above can be coloured by circumstances.

IE, Brogdale is coming towards me armed with a copy of the guardian and a concerned look on his face I would step aside and offer a casual greeting.
Scores of Brogdales are running towards me armed with sharp implements and a deeply concerned look on their faces, I would look for an avenue of escape, should there not be one available, I would fix bayonets. Should that not give them pause I would initially shoot to wound the leader of the mob, should that not stop their advance I would use the remainder of my ammunition to kill the ringleaders.

"People"? Who are they, then?

 

[coley]

"People"? Who are they, then?

One or two of us that have actually served in HM forces and find amusement in your claim that we have some kind of blind obedience to the monarchy as a result of taking the oath.
Though the more you bang on about it,the more I can feel a distinct preference to being allowed a choice to say, obey Blair and Cameron or Wor Liz? somehow I feel Auld Liz given a say in the matter wouldn't have sent us out on the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.

 

[brogdale]

One or two of us that have actually served in HM forces and find amusement in your claim that we have some kind of blind obedience to the monarchy as a result of taking the oath.

This 'speaking for others' schtick....really?

If you read what I've been posting you'll see that I have not been saying that at all. In fact, in reality, you're the one who has actually uttered those words when you swore the oath....

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.

I've consistently questioned the wisdom of, or need for, a pledge that commits those swearing to loyalty to the Saxe-Coburgs, rather than the people, and an open-ended obligation to obey all orders.

 

[coley]

This 'speaking for others' schtick....really?

Aye, I'm speaking for mesel, six years service, me two sons 15 and 20 years service and many of me marras and relations ( with gawd knows how many years accumulated service) mainly socialist in their political views who would piss themselves laughing at your posts.
I'm not knocking you, I genuinely am at a loss as to where your coming from.
You don't like the military? Fine, you don't like the monarchy fine, you don't like the 'establishment' fine, just don't make the assumption the military would protect 2&3without question.

 

[brogdale]

Aye, I'm speaking for mesel, six years service, me two sons 15 and 20 years service and many of me marras and relations ( with gawd knows how many years accumulated service) mainly socialist in their political views who would piss themselves laughing at your posts.
I'm not knocking you, I genuinely am at a loss as to where your coming from.
You don't like the military? Fine, you don't like the monarchy fine, you don't like the 'establishment' fine, just don't make the assumption the military would protect 2&3without question.

So...speaking for yourself, (maybe?), you appear to be saying that you don't agree with the wording of the oath.

 

[coley]

So...speaking for yourself, (maybe?), you appear to be saying that you don't agree with the wording of the oath.

I'm saying,that many if not most, wouldn't feel bound by the literal wording of it, and if you are going to be so particular in your assumptions and accusations, stop referring to the royals by a name none of the present lot were born with.

 

[brogdale]

I'm saying,that many if not most, wouldn't feel bound by the literal wording of it, and if you are going to be so particular in your assumptions and accusations, stop referring to the royals by a name none of the present lot were born with.

I've been arguing that the royalist oath demanding absolute obedience does not appear fit for purpose, or relate to the day-to-day experience of many of those employed in the armed forces. You appear to be in agreement.

Why the defensive stuff wrt the RF? They only made up their new name because they were ashamed of their ancestry, didn't they?

 

[coley]

I've been arguing that the royalist oath demanding absolute obedience does not appear fit for purpose, or relate to the day-to-day experience of many of those employed in the armed forces. You appear to be in agreement.

Why the defensive stuff wrt the RF? They only made up their new name because they were ashamed of their ancestry, didn't they?

Haven't disagreed at all, you want it reworded! fine by me, as for the RF? just pointing out a need for accuracy.
All I've disagreed with is your daft assumption that all service personnel would feel obligated to blindly obey it.

 

[brogdale]

Haven't disagreed at all, you want it reworded! fine by me, as for the RF? just pointing out a need for accuracy.
All I've disagreed with is your daft assumption that all service personnel would feel obligated to blindly obey it.

Yeah, but saying "fine by me" implies a curious degree of disinterest. We are talking about an oath requiring formal loyalty to the monarchy and obedience to all orders that you have personally solemnly sworn. I would have thought that, given your professed views, you'd have more enthusiastically embraced the notion of another oath (or none?).

Instead, throughout much of this discussion, you appear to have reacted in a defensive manner to the notion that change might be beneficial. Maybe we won't find any agreement on this issue, but I'm genuinely confused by such an apparently conflicted position.

 

[brogdale]

The answers, by the way, are:
1) Yes, it's legal for a pilot to refuse such an order (although it's also the case that pilots are trained to depersonalise what they do, which makes them more liable to carry out their mission regardless of legality - that and because they're floppy-haired cunts).
2) It's legal for a soldier to refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians. There's a measure of "proportionate response" expected in orders, so an officer issuing such an order if there were no imminent threat wouldn't be acting within the boundaries of their responsibilities.
3) It's legal for a soldier to strike-break if, and only if, the strike-break threatens lives and safety, hence the breaking of fire strikes. The use of soldiers in the various large-scale strikes in the first half of the 20th century, while not illegal, was certainly a misuse of manpower, and an illustration of just how interlinked the Establishment and the military were.

Given the legal system there aren't "definitive" answers, only what happens case by case, and the applicability of a "conscience clause" to the actions of an individual.

Thanks for the straight talking VP.

On point 1, is it not the case that the RAF & Downing St. have established a clear protocol for shooting down 'unresponsive' aircraft? It very much looks as though any such ultimate decision would be taken by a politician, and therefore I'm figuring that if a flyer received the order to fire any refusal would result in some sort of sanction as a breach of oath?

wrt 2, "threat" to who?

...and with 3. do you know of any instance in which UK forces have ever refused to strike-break?

 

[coley]

Yeah, but saying "fine by me" implies a curious degree of disinterest. We are talking about an oath requiring formal loyalty to the monarchy and obedience to all orders that you have personally solemnly sworn. I would have thought that, given your professed views, you'd have more enthusiastically embraced the notion of another oath (or none?).

Instead, throughout much of this discussion, you appear to have reacted in a defensive manner to the notion that change might be beneficial. Maybe we won't find any agreement on this issue, but I'm genuinely confused by such an apparently conflicted position.

It's not a " conflicted opinion" more a position of common sense, if anyone is confused or conflicted it would seem to be you given your belief that service personnel would attach any importance to the wording of the oath as opposed to its accepted meaning.

 

[brogdale]

It's not a " conflicted opinion" more a position of common sense, if anyone is confused or conflicted it would seem to be you given your belief that service personnel would attach any importance to the wording of the oath as opposed to its accepted meaning.

Hmmm "common sense", eh?

Earlier you said..

...we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract...

Now much as I may have wished otherwise, when I did sign job contracts I was bound by them and certainly couldn't dismiss the wording as unimportant. In fact, a great deal of the union case-work that I undertook specifically involved holding employers to the wording of contractual agreements.

I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance in your posting.

 

[coley]

Hmmm "common sense", eh?

Earlier you said..

Now much as I may have wished otherwise, when I did sign job contracts I was bound by them and certainly couldn't dismiss the wording as unimportant. In fact, a great deal of the union case-work that I undertook specifically involved holding employers to the wording of contractual agreements.

I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance in your posting.

Aye, I blame the damp weather.

 

[Pickman's model]

Aye, I blame the damp weather.

aye, i blame your cognitive dissonance

 

[brogdale]

Aye, I blame the damp weather.

Yeah, funny and all that...but don't start the dodging difficult questions again, eh?

 

[coley]

Where are all these difficult questions?

 

[Pickman's model]

Where are all these difficult questions?

the questions aren't difficult: but you seem to find answering them tricky.

 

[coley]

the questions aren't difficult: but you seem to find answering them tricky.

Nope, anyone asks a straight question they get a straight answer, but framing questions so you can attack or twist the replies? Different ball game

 

[Pickman's model]

Nope, anyone asks a straight question they get a straight answer, but framing questions so you can attack or twist the replies? Different ball game

from what i've seen you're reluctant to answer questions.

 

[coley]

from what i've seen you're reluctant to answer questions.

Where?

 

[Pickman's model]

Where?

here!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks for the straight talking VP.

On point 1, is it not the case that the RAF & Downing St. have established a clear protocol for shooting down 'unresponsive' aircraft? It very much looks as though any such ultimate decision would be taken by a politician, and therefore I'm figuring that if a flyer received the order to fire any refusal would result in some sort of sanction as a breach of oath?

Yes, there is a clear protocol, and failure to carry out that order would result in trial before Court Martial. However, Court Martial is consonant with extant UK law, so a number of defences can be rendered for the failure.

wrt 2, "threat" to who?

Threat to whoever/whatever the soldiers are tasked to defend. My point is that the Guardsmen at Buck House wouldn't open fire and wouldn't be ordered to open fire unless threat to life and limb of who they're defending is imminent. I'm fairly sure it still pertains (it did in my day) that while live ammo is carried, it isn't loaded. An empty mag is loaded, and a live mag kept in an ammo pouch. Disciplinaries for carrying a loaded weapon when you're not supposed to are harsh. Even carrying a lone live round on your person can see you put away.

...and with 3. do you know of any instance in which UK forces have ever refused to strike-break?

As a whole, no. As individual units, yes. Several individual units during "The Great Strike" refused to strike-break, and were threatened with mutiny charges. The one I know most about (which isn't much, because this stuff was kept under wraps) was a company of infantry whose personnel were assigned to drive trains, and refused to do so, on the sensible grounds that while the army had some of its' own trains that they were trained to operate, most of the rolling stock they were being expected to handle was outside their competence, as was operating a train with passenger carriages, rather than goods vans.