View Full Version : Wear it with pride !
tezzer
23rd Jan 2009, 06:19
Seems you MAY now wear your hard earned uniform in PeteBogHorror once more, overturning a disgraceful decision.
BBC NEWS | England | Cambridgeshire | City's RAF uniform ban is lifted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7846092.stm)
edited to correct a spelling error, and my point, such as it was has been covered at length elsewhere, about servicemen and women being both allowed to and proud to wear their uniforms in public. SOME civvies, myself included (albeit from an RAF family) are proud of our armed forces.
F.ck, this place is full of self righteous a.sholes !
Mr C Hinecap
23rd Jan 2009, 07:28
Seems you MAY now wear your hard earned unifirm in PeteBogHorror once more, overturning a disgraceful decision.
The incorrect spelling and 'witty' re-naming of the city would probably detract from your point - if you had one. In what way was taking action to ensure the security of personnel 'disgraceful'?
Mr C Hinecap
23rd Jan 2009, 07:57
The situation was under regular review - as one would expect. One would not expect details of that review or the situation as it has changed to be made public. That would just be stupid and pointless. Or do you think he should have made the work of the security forces public?
Morning Hiney,
Interesting to see that ".. the findings of the review have now permitted" the ban to be lifted. One speculates what the passive review based the decision on. The Group Captain doesn't mention any further measures which were sought or implemented so was the situation that perilous in the first place?
I guess this will confirm to many, that the ban was a bit of a knee jerk reaction, especially as RAF recruiters and army walk around with uniformed pride and there have been no subsequent reports of hassle. This of course, aside to the principle of the decision in the first place which we, I know, see differently.
And lets face it, it is a Peat Bog Horror! :ok:
Hiney said: The situation was under regular review - as one would expect. One would not expect details of that review or the situation as it has changed to be made public. That would just be stupid and pointless. Or do you think he should have made the work of the security forces public?
I don't see why any review shouldn't be made public because it involved handling a 'simple' alleged assault, which as far as I know now, isn't sub judicae. I imagine any review would be more likely to address management issues involved, which might explain the lack of detail. Putting on a civvy jacket before leaving the unit is hardly top end counter terrorism stuff or involves inserting undercover donkey jacket clad SIB operatives into the murky depths of the London Road (which might need a little discretion by comparison!).
Addressing the manner of how the review was handled though, is getting off the point.
Wrathmonk
23rd Jan 2009, 10:40
I was led to believe the "cover up order" was made following a more sinister event than an "alleged assault", namely the harassment of a female (military) nurse as she left the MDHU (where she worked) and which continued from the car park with her being followed to her home.
May be wrong - it is a rumour site after all. Some may have seen it as kneejerk. Bit like all those who called for the local Rock unit to go and give the locals a good hiding ....:ugh:
It wasn't me who called for that. A nurse being followed is creepy and bad, but possibly not grounds enough not to make the 'work of the security forces public'.
romeo bravo
23rd Jan 2009, 11:42
The interesting thing on this is that the 'incident' supposed to have happen some 18 months before the ban came into force. Supposidly a drunken youth was seen giving a nurse verbal.
It only came to light when the local radio station aired some programme about the way service personnel were being treated by the 'public', someone phoned in and made the comments. And it went on from there.
As has been said, the AFCO guys have/had no problem with walking around town, as with the TA guys from London Road. Good on them.
Mr C Hinecap
23rd Jan 2009, 12:38
The interesting thing on this is that the 'incident' supposed to have happen some 18 months before the ban came into force. Supposidly a drunken youth was seen giving a nurse verbal.
It only came to light when the local radio station aired some programme about the way service personnel were being treated by the 'public', someone phoned in and made the comments. And it went on from there.
The ban only came to light following the radio broadcast. The ban had been in place for some time before that. I'm glad you use the word 'supposed' so many times as it ensures your meanderings will only be treated as fact by the rabid idiots who think we should have 'sorted 'em aht ourselves'.
downsizer
23rd Jan 2009, 12:50
The ban was brought in for reasons other than those listed in this thread.:=
Jumping_Jack
23rd Jan 2009, 14:03
Downsizer....absolutely right....those calling the decision disgraceful haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about......
Wrathmonk
23rd Jan 2009, 14:37
downsizer
Thanks for putting me right! Always thought there would be more to it than the MOD grapevine allowed. Guess that's why the truth never came out at the time, nor will be fully exposed now.
Doesn't stop a lot of people letting the truth get in the way of a good bitch/rant/outrage though!:E
EESDL
23rd Jan 2009, 15:08
a nurse doesn't have to be in the military for me to follow her........doh!
Anyone who was forced to wander around Lincoln wearing No 1s at 3pm Saturday closing time, would know exactly what harassment was all about! - Peterborough doesn't even come close.
Monty77
23rd Jan 2009, 15:46
Downsizer/Jumping Jack:
What were the reasons for the ban then?