PM 'Disrespect' Armed Forces [Archive]

pulse1

6th Apr 2010, 12:11

Much as I cannot wait to see the back of GB, I do not think that his body language on Remembrance Day showed disrespect to our armed forces. It seemed to me that he was showing signs of stress and depression.

In particular it must be highly stressful to be standing there on such an occasion when the bodies of brave servicemen and women continue to return from Afghanistan - and he has the power to stop it.

I am sorry to say that I think that L/Cpl Beharry has it wrong on this occasion.

Finningley Boy

6th Apr 2010, 14:40

Maybe someone should have sidled up alongside Brown and slapped him out of his current depression. That said, it's not necessarily in the bag for the Tories on 6th May. I fancy the absurd state of affairs where Alex Salmond has to approach Buckingham Palace and ask the Queen for permission to form the U.K's first SNP Government with a tiny majority.

Can you imagine the expression on everyone's faces, especially the super-bewildered look on Salmond's!?!?!:O

FB

Shack37

6th Apr 2010, 15:16

Much as I cannot wait to see the back of GB, I do not think that his body language on Remembrance Day showed disrespect to our armed forces. It seemed to me that he was showing signs of stress and depression.

Seems to me a good reason to resign and to have called an election sooner. Loses the election, stress disappears and cures the depression for the whole population.

racedo

6th Apr 2010, 18:10

A very poor display by a professional.

Whether you like the PM or not is irrelevant BUT the PM represents the people of the UK and as such he should be treated with the respect the office deserves.

Whether he personally is deserving of that respect is something else BUT that office warrants respect which the VC winner has failed to do.

No doubt there will be some say he was appointed and not elected as he did not stand for election on that basis, it was clear however prior to last election that Blair would stand down.

However I would also refer people back to WW2 and note that Winston Churchill did not stand for election as a potential PM in the General Election pre WW2, nor indeed did John Major during the build up to Gulf War 1.

As a serving member of HM forces he doesn't get to decide who he likes in the leadership above him. His only input is at election time when he can vote for which ever candidate he wants or none at all.

The willingness to go to press sets a dangerous precedent as what happens when a serving soldier goes public and slates the Head of the Armed Forces because he is from RAF and doesn't understand the Army.

A2QFI

6th Apr 2010, 18:21

Resspect has to be earned. The office might have to be respected but an incompetent bumbling holder of the office does not. Brown is is a waste of time, so far as the Forces are concerned, and to a lot of other people as well.

Thelma Viaduct

6th Apr 2010, 18:22

racedo,

The 'govern'ment traded any sense of 'respect' when they sent soldiers to fight a war based on lies.

They can't have it both ways & fair play to the VC for saying what most of the country are thinking.

racedo

6th Apr 2010, 18:42

If PM's traded respect by sending me to war based on lies then there is NO PM that could meet those so called standards because every person has been sent to war based on lies. This is what politicians do, compromise and lie to achieve what they want and a politicians aim is re election and a legacy. The requirements to be PM are not set by anybody but the party who can muster a majority of votes in Parliament.

The Armed Forces don't get to choose their political masters nor should they.

Sadly it seems people are happy to support the Lance Corporal based on their hatred for the Politics of the PM rather than seeing a bigger picture.

I wonder would Maggie still be loved if Galtieri had waited a year to start the Falklands war ?

When you are in Uniform you don't get involved in Party politics and sadly that is what has occured here.

BEagle

6th Apr 2010, 19:22

Normally I would agree that members of the Armed Forces should be above political opinion.

But we're talking about the despicable nuLabor here, so normal rules surely cannot apply...

Dengue_Dude

6th Apr 2010, 19:41

When you are in Uniform you don't get involved in Party politics and sadly that is what has occured here.

Your annual assessment - signed by HC Andersen or the brothers Grimm?

Get real, I hate to admit it but once again, I agree with BEagle. This shower of **** have long ago given up the right to have respect.

Or are the guys and girls (all citizens by the way) supposed to just take it on the nose everytime Brown and cronies feel like dishing it out?

This is the man who said: "every Pound on Defence was a wasted Pound". If that's the case then bring then home.

glad rag

6th Apr 2010, 20:53

"When you are in Uniform you don't get involved in Party politics and sadly that is what has occured here........

The soldier said his snub came a year after he attended a Downing Street reception during which he claimed the PM appeared "totally disinterested" in him and other servicemen.

He added: "This is nothing to do with the election, or who I want to be PM. My problem is with him personally, Gordon Brown the man."

racedo

6th Apr 2010, 21:11

The soldier said his snub came a year after he attended a Downing Street reception during which he claimed the PM appeared "totally disinterested" in him and other servicemen.

So on the basis of his opinion that he "appeared" uninterested he then gets involved in a pretty petty insult.

Those claiming its ok because they dislike the party should perhaps ask the question of when someone uses the actions of said Lance Corporal to act inappropriately with a senior officer or HM herself then will you think person is acting rightly or wrongly.

If he wishes to protest then do so out of Uniform not in Uniform.

Dengue_Dude

6th Apr 2010, 21:40

The difference is the Mr Beharry as proved beyond all doubt that people mattered to him.

I wonder if the same can be said for Gordon Brown, the jury is out and the tea leaves would tend to indicate there is more bad news to come - especially if blinkered fools vote for him and his corrupt government.

I'm now in civvies so I can say that - the man is an arse (no, actually not, they're useful).

Comment deleted - personal attacks not tolerated in here!

Thelma Viaduct

6th Apr 2010, 23:32

racedo, they broke the covenant and were found out, they deserve no respect.

It's not political either, the tories would have done the same as bliar & chums, they're all scum.

Red Line Entry

7th Apr 2010, 07:40

Beagle,

Normal rules do apply. As a civilian, you are (now) entitled to rant as much as you wish. However, Beharry's gallantry should not hide the fact that he is still serving and as such should not be publicising his personal opinion of the coutry's Prime Minister

Interesting though that he refused to shake the PM's hand - I wonder if ordering him to do so would be a legal order...?

teeteringhead

7th Apr 2010, 10:14

And at the risk of ever-so-slight thread drift, how does 29 days to go fit with the need for deployed forces to register/fill in/return postal votes by the due deadline ......

..... or are they to be disenfranchised....?

Edited to add: Much info about Service Voters here (http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/armed_forces.aspx) on the Electoral Commission website. Which admits that deployed troops may not be able to get a postal vote back in time!! However, a "proxy vote" may be used, providing your other half/significant other/Mum shares your political views. Spread the word!

Dengue_Dude

7th Apr 2010, 12:11

Fair cop, sorry about that. I think it obvious, I was a trifle agitated.

The 'stiff upper lip' and 'take it on the chin' frame of mind really doesn't work for me when our people are being shafted then shafted again.

In the days when government respected (or at least were respectful of) the armed forces, being non-partisan in politics was achievable, I think that these days are gone (hopefully only for now).

I think that with these days of evermore watchful and 'troublesome' investigative journalism, the populace in general are being made far more aware of our 'lords and masters' indiscretions. Politicians are known for being cynical, never more than now - everybody is dispensible in their quest for power and nest-feathering (a la Hoon, Byers et al).

E L Whisty

7th Apr 2010, 12:26

According to Gordon Brown at PMQs today, he is very respectful of the armed forces and indeed, asked CDS if there were enough helicopters in Afghanistan. Indeed, he always ensures that there are sufficient resources for all military operations.

So, it would seem, CDS (Sir Jock) and his service staffs gave the wrong 'advice'. It is hard to imagine that such officers are so incompetent. They really ought to have been removed from their posts!

Or perhaps we should believe that Gordon Brown is a lying b***ard and is a traitor to this country. But of course he is too great a man to have to answer for his crime.

Jabba_TG12

7th Apr 2010, 12:39

"According to Gordon Brown at PMQs today, he is very respectful of the armed forces and indeed, asked CDS if there were enough helicopters in Afghanistan. Indeed, he always ensures that there are sufficient resources for all military operations."

"So, it would seem, CDS (Sir Jock) and his service staffs gave the wrong 'advice'. It is hard to imagine that such officers are so incompetent. They really ought to have been removed from their posts!"

However hard it may be to imagine.... give it a try. Try your hardest.

Stirrup is a place-man left in post over and above his normal "tour length" precisely because he is the least politically disruptive for Brown. As for his competance in post... make of that what you will, given Brown's history.

I know I'm biased. Never liked Stirrup, never will. Not that he'll lose any sleep over that. :mad:

Grumpy106

7th Apr 2010, 14:43

'So on the basis of his opinion that he "appeared" uninterested he then gets involved in a pretty petty insult.

Those claiming its ok because they dislike the party should perhaps ask the question of when someone uses the actions of said Lance Corporal to act inappropriately with a senior officer or HM herself then will you think person is acting rightly or wrongly.

If he wishes to protest then do so out of Uniform not in Uniform.'

Don't remember swearing allegiance to the PM when I joined up. Brown deserves no respect and has certainly not earned any. He is a disgrace as a PM with his appalling attitude towards the Armed Forces. He has only started appearing pro-military because an election is looming. The sooner he is gone the better. Well done to Beharry for doing what I am sure 99% of the current and former Military would like the opportunity to do.

VictorNavrad

7th Apr 2010, 15:31

I have a nice piece of paper stached away somewhere, signed by HM that says I worked for Her not Gordon Brown. :ok: Hope all you boys & girls in uniform get your votes cast next month wherever you are; we might just get rid of him and his shabby government. Anyone know of a labour MP with family in the services ? Not sure they have a clue what serving our country is about; too busy fiddling expences.

A2QFI

7th Apr 2010, 16:55

If we have enough helicopters in theatre, according to the Principal Moron (PM) why are we ordering more, to be delivered after the proposed date for the withdrawal of our Forces from AFGH?

Thelma Viaduct

7th Apr 2010, 17:08

NO PM that could meet those so called standards because every person has been sent to war based on lies.

racedo,

WW2 lies ?
Falklands more lies ??
GW1 even more lies ???

I think your spouting is based on lies.

Flugplatz

7th Apr 2010, 17:55

I cannot agree that a politician, even if fully democratically elected, deserves respect in every instance (or should that read as 'should not be openly criticised by an employee'?). By that qualification both Hitler and Stalin would have been beyond reproach. Not that I would compare the PM with those two, but unblinking loyalty and respect based solely on the holder's office is by no means automatic. 'Respect' seems to work best when it is mutual.

Flug

racedo

7th Apr 2010, 18:06

I have a nice piece of paper stached away somewhere, signed by HM that says I worked for Her not Gordon Brown.

In which case why did you take orders from people who were not HM ?
Oh wait they were appointed by the Government of HM, as is the Prime Minister.

Sadly this has degenerated into a well as its a Labour PM then its ok to do whatever he wants while ignoring the way the Tories acted with respect to the Armed forces.

I think GB has been a pathethic PM, but then again I thought Jim Callaghan, Maggie for quite a long period, John Major and Tony Blair were just as pathetic.

However they were the PMs and while in that position deserve the respect that the position commands even though I feel they were unworthy of the position . But then again only the elected MPs get to choose the PM.

I believe allowing a member of the forces in uniform to act inappropriately sends a wrong message and allows people to question the conduct and professionalism of our forces at a time when the support of the public is required.

Thelma Viaduct

7th Apr 2010, 21:47

I believe allowing a member of the forces in uniform to act inappropriately sends a wrong message and allows people to question the conduct and professionalism of our forces at a time when the support of the public is required.It's because of people with your thought process that this country is in the current mess it finds itself.

You'd rather pander to keeping up appearances and etiquette than actually cutting the head off the snake, the PM and all politicians should be ashamed and slated to eternity.
People are being killed on a daily basis, and that is due to PM & friends.

I doubt you've ever signed up fwiw, or else you'd actually value what you say and maybe think before typing.

I do agree that the cons would be no better, that doesn't mean brown/bliar shouldn't be berated from high heaven, they're all scum.

Grumpy106

8th Apr 2010, 09:22

Pious,

Well said, sir.

Racedo,

You are wrong. Brown deserves absolutely no respect from anyone in uniform. The Queen is the Head of State, not that idiot. The Royal Family understand the Forces and as such have earned our respect, as evidenced during Prince Charles' recent visit to Theatre. He can relate to what the Military and, as importantly, our families, go through when loved ones are away, Brown and his cronies never will. That is why they do not care a jot about the Military, they are only interested in safeguarding their votes and money, as evidenced by their cowtowing to the corrupt left-wing unions.

ZuluMike

8th Apr 2010, 12:09

A couple of years ago Brown the PM visited Basrah. As he entered Brigade HQ ops room, miraculously everyone seemed to need to make an urgent phone call. GB approached the only available person, a female Australian Army captain. He thanked her for "all the hard work you are doing for our country". It was rather amusing, as she was clearly wearing different DPM combats complete with Aussie flags on - but also showed he can't pick a UK service person in a line-up. I don't think anyone was being political by 'snubbing' him; certainly for me, it was personal. Rightly or wrongly I blame him for the problems we have experienced and continue to experience having tried to fight 2 conflicts with inadequate funding for all the necessary equipment, training and support. Not in his current job as PM and I don't have a problem with us being sent to either conflict (and I've served several times in both). I blame GB the former Chancellor for lack of adequate funding.

I didn't want to be part of his photo opportunity - don't forget, all you people who keep making the point that it isn't appropriate for Armed Forces personnel to behave politically: the politicians continuously use Armed Forces personnel for party politics. That was why GB came to Basrah that time (he was almost going to call a snap general election and he wanted to be on TV surrounded by smiling troops to get one over on the Tories), it was for PR not out of respect. If I am not allowed to be political in public, fine, but I don't wish to be used publicly for party politics either.

I actually wanted to ask him where my f***ing desert boots were, promised in Jan 03 and never turned up. 56 deg and winter boots. Followed by 7 years (and counting) of insufficient funding for what we're asked to achieve. I didn't ask him about my boots - I had no desire to embarrass my commanding officer, and I didn't have the balls anyway. But there was an urgent call I had to make. Find someone else to shake your hand for the cameras.

Dengue_Dude

8th Apr 2010, 14:16

Gentlemen/Ladies as appropriate:

I'm proud of you. Well said.

racedo

8th Apr 2010, 17:53

You are wrong. Brown deserves absolutely no respect from anyone in uniform. The Queen is the Head of State, not that idiot. The Royal Family understand the Forces and as such have earned our respect, as evidenced during Prince Charles' recent visit to Theatre. He can relate to what the Military and, as importantly, our families, go through when loved ones are away, Brown and his cronies never will. That is why they do not care a jot about the Military, they are only interested in safeguarding their votes and money, as evidenced by their cowtowing to the corrupt left-wing unions.

You keep confusing this.

I am asking for respect for the Prime Minister who ever he or she is, as elected by parliament who are elected by the people.

The fact that you seek to make it based on an individual is incorrect.

What if the next PM doesn't feel enamoured with the military does it then allow the military to decide whether it wishes to respect the PM or not ?

Kitbag

8th Apr 2010, 18:47

I'm with racedo on this.
Perhaps if it was put in terms of non commissioned personnel deciding to ignore certain commissioned officers because they have no respect for them (it's true there are some officers who really should not have been commissioned) you can start to see the problem, which is where racedo s coming from I think.
Someone mentioned the scroll earlier- it says HM and her duly appointed ministers and representatives. Brown is duly appointed.
Maybe we could take this disrespect idea further. HM can force the dissolution of a Parliament if she feels her ministers are not up to the job.
Seems to me that neither she, nor Chas actually do give a stuff as they are, effectively, irrelevant to politics in Britain.

Oh and I won't be voting for Labour

A2QFI

8th Apr 2010, 19:45

MPN11

8th Apr 2010, 19:52

Was L/Cpl Beharry right to snub the PM? Probably a bit rude, eh?

Would I do the same? YES.

My wife and I have our "Letter from Betty" on the study wall behind me ... nothing there that says my loyalty is/was to the PM. Just to my Queen and my military superiors. The parchment says, as many of you know "... Observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer ..."

I don't see some transient politician mentioned there, on either copy.

So Gordo can "strut and fret his hour upon the stage", but he will NEVER have the respect of the British military community.

[Still a bit f-ing rude, though, Johnson :ok:]

racedo

8th Apr 2010, 20:17

GB may be appointed by HM but he is chosen from within the ranks of the Labour party by the members of that party - not fully democratic and not representative of the wishes of the population at large

No

PM is chosen by votes of Members of Parliament, all of whom are elected by the wishes of the population at large in an election.

LFFC

8th Apr 2010, 22:37

No

PM is chosen by votes of Members of Parliament, all of whom are elected by the wishes of the population at large in an election.

racedo,

Check your facts!

"The voting is split equally three ways between Labour MPs and the Labour MEPs, party members and members of affiliated trade unions who have not opted out of paying a political levy." Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6052UN20100106)

This certainly isn't a new topic; perhaps we should remember the following thread:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/255439-brown-treats-services-shabbily.html

racedo

8th Apr 2010, 22:51

Check your facts!

"The voting is split equally three ways between Labour MPs and the Labour MEPs, party members and members of affiliated trade unions who have not opted out of paying a political levy." Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6052UN20100106)

I think you are confusing Leadership of the Labour Party with Prime Minister of the UK, they are not the same thing.

I care little in relation to whom is leader of what party and that is for each party under their own internal party rules to decide..

The issue I keep referring back to is HM's Prime Minister.

Neptunus Rex

9th Apr 2010, 04:01

"I think you are confusing Leadership of the Labour Party with Prime Minister of the UK, they are not the same thing."

They surely won't be on May 7th!

Samuel

9th Apr 2010, 23:54

Well, he's not my PM, so I can say what I like about him being one of a government comprised of more clinically barking-mad people the UK has ever seen. I do think one or two people here might have the wrong view and are confusing loyalty,[and yes, I have one of those parchment thingies!] to an elected PM with personal opinion, and in this regard I'm sure that no one could doubt Beharry is entitled to his! Good on him for expressing his personal affront to a man who has clearly let him and his mates down. I doubt very much if Brown was a aware he been snubbed, because for him to do so would give him a sensitivity he clearly wouldn't understand. It may well have been the convention once upon a time for all of us to avoid embarrassing those in high office, but times have changed, along with the more overt standard of lies inflicted on the armed forces, and in fact the whole country.

I'd like to think I might do what Beharry did, but then every annual assessment I ever had mentioned that I didn't suffer fools gladly!

Dengue_Dude

10th Apr 2010, 18:49

That's the beauty of things like this Samuel.

Someone will have told the tw@t by now - he'll have a shed load of 'assistants' who peruse all manner of media looking for feedback to ensure he can manage the 'next 5 years'.

Plus it's been in the media, but apparently it's not right and the PM respects the Armed Forces immensely - so it's all OK after all.

What a nasty cynical bunch we all are, doubting this great humanitarian, this giant intellect of our time. In fact, it's a privilege for us to have him as leader.

Anyone seen 'Brewster's Millions' - if ever we needed a box on the ballot paper marked "None of the above", it's now.

We'll see . . . mind you any replacement will be a politician, ergo when his/her lips move, they'll be lying.

baffy boy

10th Apr 2010, 21:42

Somewhere over the gulf not much over a year ago. Mr Brown on a 146 in the same part of the ac facing a Lt Cdr, a (female) army sgt and a RAF Cpl. They were together on a leg that took about an hour and an half.
What did the PM say to his fellow passengers?

Absolutely nothing.

Seldomfitforpurpose

10th Apr 2010, 22:09

The man in question was awarded a VC.

All of you politician/senior officer apologists should take a walk in his boots before you have the bare faced cheek to question him :=

cazatou

11th Apr 2010, 10:12

I'm afraid contributors are confusing certain Labour Politicians with people who have normal emotions and concerns. The prime objective to which these Politicians direct all their energies is Political Power and, therefore, all other considerations are subsumed to this end.

In August 1969 the situation in Northern Ireland had deteriorated markedly and Armed Insurrection was a distinct possibility. The Prime Minister (that nice Mr Wilson) was, however, on holiday in the Scilly Isles and did not wish to return to London. I was, therefore, the Co-pilot on a 46 Sqn Andover which flew Mr C to St Mawgan whilst Mr Wilson flew to St Mawgan in a RN Helicopter.

As we were flying Mr C back to London after the Meeting I received on HF a message regarding the situation in NI and that Troops had been deployed to assist the Civil Power. I asked what I considered to be the obvious question and, whilst waiting for the answer, I passed the message back to Mr C.

I was then asked by Mr C a question - but it was not the question I had anticipated. The question to which I had now obtained the answer was "Had there been any Casualties" - to which the answer was No. The Question I was asked was "What time exactly was the request made for Troops to be deployed". Apparently Mr C had been asked before we departed St Mawgan if any request for Troops had been made and had told the Press "No" . He was only concerned with his Political reputation and not with the Troops who had been committed to Active Service in the face of Armed Rebellion.

It would appear that Senior Labour Politicians today adhere to the same concept.

Samuel

11th Apr 2010, 22:33

GB is a pathological liar, [as was/is Blair] and as most of the rest of us aren't, why should we bow to the conformity of being courteous to such a buffoon? I doubt the VC winner is into such niceties, he simply sees it that here was a man who has lied, continuously, about what he has not done for the Armed Forces of Britain, and decide he would do possibly the only thing available to him and that was to treat him with the contempt he deserves.

fawkes

12th Apr 2010, 07:33

Serving members of the armed forces should hold tehemselves aloof from political comment, but when the despicable attempt to make political capital out of their betters by assuming some sort of virtue by association, then they place themselves beyond the pale.

Well done L/Cpl B - we can learn from this that moral courage is as important (and rare) as physical. If GB had read his Kipling he would remember:

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!