Military ethos and Diversity?

[Finningley Boy]

I've just been reading about the Army's day for Diversity training on 8 February. The CGS has a remarkable background as a Soldier. It might be the way my own mentality has been shaped, I left the RAF in 1990, but do we reckon he's sincere? Or is he just trying to avoid being removed early? He's due to handover at any minute anyway, so...?

FB

[NutLoose]

Well if you want an example of how far things have gone, and not in my opinion for the better, watch the clip.

https://youtu.be/P5ar7vYg0pY

[Toadstool]

Well if you want an example of how far things have gone, and not in my opinion for the better, watch the clip.

https://youtu.be/P5ar7vYg0pY

Why is that Nutty? What, in your opinion, is wrong about making the work environment, wherever that is, a more inclusive and welcoming place to work/operate? In my experience, from right now and through the last 10-15 years, D&I policy has absolutely not affected our ability on Ops. That is unless you have a different experience in which case could you give me examples?

[alfred_the_great]

How does making sure someone feels like they comfortable at work and actually part of the team become a negative?

[Wyler]

Great video. Says it all.
Back in the 80s a very good friend of mine was thrown out of the RAF for being Gay. Her treatment was disgusting and bordering on criminal so I am DELIGHTED that we have progressed away from that. I also know 2 former colleagues who have transitioned from male to female. Both were not just transformed physically but mentally as well into happy, contented people. I am also delighted that that is now something that can be openly applauded. I am also delighted to see the male dominated culture brought somewhat to heal with way more females taking leadership and combat roles.
However, the Armed Forces are in the business of enforcing Government policy by use of extreme violence when all diplomacy has failed. As part of that we have to leave potential enemies in no doubt that we mean business and can deliver. That American Ad and 'a day for reflection' achieve the exact opposite. I believe that we have let the pendulum swing too far on this one.
I liked the Royal Marine Ad - 99.9% need not apply.

[Blue_Circle]

Great video. Says it all.
Back in the 80s a very good friend of mine was thrown out of the RAF for being Gay. Her treatment was disgusting and bordering on criminal so I am DELIGHTED that we have progressed away from that. I also know 2 former colleagues who have transitioned from male to female. Both were not just transformed physically but mentally as well into happy, contented people. I am also delighted that that is now something that can be openly applauded. I am also delighted to see the male dominated culture brought somewhat to heal with way more females taking leadership and combat roles.
However, the Armed Forces are in the business of enforcing Government policy by use of extreme violence when all diplomacy has failed. As part of that we have to leave potential enemies in no doubt that we mean business and can deliver. That American Ad and 'a day for reflection' achieve the exact opposite. I believe that we have let the pendulum swing too far on this one.
I liked the Royal Marine Ad - 99.9% need not apply.
Surely the Army can take a day for refelction and also be a mature and effective fighting force? I know a fair few serving soldiers who I think a lot of posters here would consider pretty 'woke'; they'd all kick all our asses in a firefight.

[Toadstool]

Surely the Army can take a day for refelction and also be a mature and effective fighting force? I know a fair few serving soldiers who I think a lot of posters here would consider pretty 'woke'; they'd all kick all our asses in a firefight.

Exactly. It’s not binary, we can be inclusive and an effective fighting force. There are a lot of people on here who haven’t had the operational tempo that us “woke” people have and are still involved in. That’s absolutely not meant to denigrate your service, but to reflect upon the fact that things haven’t swung completely the other way. We currently do mean business and are delivering.

[NutLoose]

I have nothing against anyone serving in the forces no matter what gender, race or personal choices, but I like Wyler feel it is targeting a small portion of the population and not really showing what may be expected of people joining the Army..

I know it's probably the wrong thing to use as an analogy, but the nazi's used the idea of "model" Theresienstadt camps in adverts to convince the jewish population of the advantages of signing up, the reality was far from that.
I just feel that the US military are aiming their advertising at not their core ideal soldier, but pandering to a minority, not that there is anything wrong with those, but simply to be seen to be politically correct.

Standing by for incoming..

[Finningley Boy]

Surely the Army can take a day for refelction and also be a mature and effective fighting force? I know a fair few serving soldiers who I think a lot of posters here would consider pretty 'woke'; they'd all kick all our asses in a firefight.
They won't be kicking my ass, they'll be kicking the Russian Army's ass.

FB

[Finningley Boy]

I have nothing against anyone serving in the forces no matter what gender, race or personal choices, but I like Wyler feel it is targeting a small portion of the population and not really showing what may be expected of people joining the Army..

I know it's probably the wrong thing to use as an analogy, but the nazi's used the idea of "model" Theresienstadt camps in adverts to convince the jewish population of the advantages of signing up, the reality was far from that.
I just feel that the US military are aiming their advertising at not their core ideal soldier, but pandering to a minority, not that there is anything wrong with those, but simply to be seen to be politically correct.

Standing by for incoming..
I think you've put very well Nutloose, ultimately the military look for a certain mindset with certain expectations. They won't find it looking in shall we say, unlikely settings.

I understand, that in recent years, the problem the army has had with recruitment isn't necessarily recruitment, but retention.

FB

[Blue_Circle]

I have nothing against anyone serving in the forces no matter what gender, race or personal choices, but I like Wyler feel it is targeting a small portion of the population and not really showing what may be expected of people joining the Army..

I know it's probably the wrong thing to use as an analogy, but the nazi's used the idea of "model" Theresienstadt camps in adverts to convince the jewish population of the advantages of signing up, the reality was far from that.
I just feel that the US military are aiming their advertising at not their core ideal soldier, but pandering to a minority, not that there is anything wrong with those, but simply to be seen to be politically correct.

Standing by for incoming..
What makes you think that inclusive and egalitarian people are a 'minority'?

[NutLoose]

Minority may have been the wrong word I was trying to come up with.

How can I put this, you do not target your recruiting advertising for minuteman silo staff at CND members.. You target the qualities that would be required to launch a strike knowing everything you ever knew was about to end.

Similarly the Army needs a certain type of mindset as mentioned, the ability to live in some pretty appalling conditions sometimes and getting down to basics...kill.
Now I am not saying these people the advert is angled at do not have those qualities, but I bet a lot do not. The advert shows the character on a parade with banners such as respect each other and love each other.... which is not exactly aimed at people expected to kill is it?


..

[Saintsman]

Minority may have been the wrong word I was trying to come up with.

How can I put this, you do not target your recruiting advertising for minuteman silo staff at CND members.. You target the qualities that would be required to launch a strike knowing everything you ever knew was about to end.

Similarly the Army needs a certain type of mindset as mentioned, the ability to live in some pretty appalling conditions sometimes and getting down to basics...kill.
Now I am not saying these people the advert is angled at do not have those qualities, but I bet a lot do not. The advert shows the character on a parade with banners such as respect each other and love each other.... which is not exactly aimed at people expected to kill is it?


..

Not just kill, but prepared to be killed in doing so.

War is a nasty, evil business and the whole point of fighting is to win. Something that a lot of woke (and not so woke) people forget.

Ultimately (and maybe an extreme example), would it matter how inclusive you felt when you have been told to go over the wall and attack your enemy knowing that you might not survive the day?

[pasta]

Similarly the Army needs a certain type of mindset as mentioned, the ability to live in some pretty appalling conditions sometimes and getting down to basics...kill.
Now I am not saying these people the advert is angled at do not have those qualities, but I bet a lot do not. The advert shows the character on a parade with banners such as respect each other and love each other.... which is not exactly aimed at people expected to kill is it?

Help me out here, is it people who stand up for equality that are less likely to have the right qualities to be in the Army? Or gay people? Or women? Is it respect that a soldier shouldn't have, or love?

[Toadstool]

Help me out here, is it people who stand up for equality that are less likely to have the right qualities to be in the Army? Or gay people? Or women? Is it respect that a soldier shouldn't have, or love?

CGS, who stands for equality, used to serve in and commanded 22 SAS. I’m pretty sure that when the time came he was more than prepared to kill or be killed.
Let’s face it, there are many who just don’t or can’t understand what it means and equate equality “ wokeness” with weakness.

[RAFEngO74to09]

British Army training day on "culture and inclusion"

https://www.forces.net/news/op-teamwork-army-tackle-cultural-and-inclusivity-issues-amongst-force

[NutLoose]

Help me out here, is it people who stand up for equality that are less likely to have the right qualities to be in the Army? Or gay people? Or women? Is it respect that a soldier shouldn't have, or love?

I didn’t say that, I was trying to get across that the demographic they appear to be targeting is not what one would normally associate with recruitment for the army.

[pasta]

I didn’t say that, I was trying to get across that the demographic they appear to be targeting is not what one would normally associate with recruitment for the army.
I think that's the point. If you accept that factors like gender, sexuality, social conscience etc have no bearing on whether someone's going to be a good soldier (or whatever you're recruiting for) it makes sense to slant your recruitment effort towards the groups that are under-represented. People who fit the stereotype are finding you anyway, so it's worth putting more effort into attracting the people that don't.

Diverse recruitment doesn't have to be woke, it can be self-serving. You want the best people you can get; if people from certain demographics aren't applying, you're probably missing out on some top candidates.

[beardy]

the Army needs a certain type of mindset as mentioned, the ability to live in some pretty appalling conditions sometimes and getting down to basics...kill.
Now I am not saying these people the advert is angled at do not have those qualities, but I bet a lot do not.

I would hope that those who do not have those qualities would neither apply nor be selected. I'm not sure on what basis you doubt that the target audience don't have those qualities.
You have to trust your those with whom you serve, that trust should be blind to qualities that have no impact on effectiveness. Gender and sexuality should not and need not be an impediment.

[NutLoose]

I would hope that those who do not have those qualities would neither apply nor be selected. I'm not sure on what basis you doubt that the target audience don't have those qualities.


But do you not think the advert the way it is portrayed may well attract those who do not have those qualities you require to apply?

[Corporal Clott]

NutLoose

I think you are right as to what I think you’re getting at.

I absolutely disagree with D&I quotas - they are total nonsense when the main aim is to WIN and not just compete - you have to pick your very best regardless of appearance. That is the real problem here. You need your best people to be in the roles that most suit them and not be there because of some quota. If you had one of the Woke’s “must reflect the make up of UK society’s population’ in a 4x 100m relay team, well guess what they would probably lose. How many 100m champions have been Caucasian in recent years? Not very many - Alan Wells was the last Caucasian to win and he needed the invasion of Afghanistan to stop many of the likely winning Afro-Caribbean athletes to turn up in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The answer lay within genes, not quotas, and that is the ACTN3 gene. This encodes instructions to create a protein called alpha-actinin-3, which helps muscles generate strong, repetitive contractions. Like the ACE gene, it comes in different types. The desirable variant for a sprinter is known as 577RR. While only 70% of US international-standard athletes have the desirable variant, 75% of Jamaicans have it whether they are athletes or not. That is why Jamaica has a highly successful set of sprint teams and somewhere like Finland has never won an Olympic sprint title (they win theirs for other sports that their majority racial make up is better suited to).

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.01080/full

Now the Wokes can try and fight the science, but you can’t really, as it is very objective. Of course there are exceptions, but we’re looking at the statistical norms. If we pitched certain members of UK society against others, then on average, a majority would be better at one thing than another - it’s just how nature works, and there will be areas of society that are better suited to certain roles than others.

It is also highly likely that Russia is influencing the West’s thinking on equality and diversity to gain a combat advantage. They have been doing it for years and they continue to do so today. Yuri Bezmenov told the West all about it many years ago, but fools continue with their D&I crusade with quotas because they believe it makes them look good, and it feels like the right thing to do (which it is, if you aren’t prepared to win at all costs), whilst softening the very forces that they command. We want the very best, regardless of appearance or background, to fill our various roles in the Armed Forces - it is all about WINNING and modern moral messaging has no place when it comes to nation on nation warfighting and ensuring that you have the very best people in your team (like the UK’s 4x 100m team).

Here is Yuri, have a listen and then think about what is going on in our world right now to the East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0

[Tengah Type]

I don not care a Flying D**k what colour, gender/:sex or ethnicity somebody is. Can they do the job?? Will they protect my A**e in a conflict situation?? That
is what it is all about. If you are in the SH1T can you all work together. My experience is YES.

[Corporal Clott]

Spot on - the ultimate D&I is when it doesn’t matter what you look like or believe - just are on the same team and are you one of the best :ok:

[NutLoose]

Longer versions including China’s and The UK’s

the Chinese one is mega impressive.


https://youtu.be/GZskbZKtI9k

[Scamp]

We have come so far yet still feel the need to have a month se aside to celebrate diversity!

i saw huge change for the better during my time in many areas of diversity & Inclusion........ though also experienced many difficulties as a manager in my role as an unqualified or trained social worker.





.

[Clunk60]

Hello Scamp

You have a lot to say on D&I and uniform for someone so new to the forum. I wonder what your Cricklade background is. Welcome anyway.

[beardy]

But do you not think the advert the way it is portrayed may well attract those who do not have those qualities you require to apply?
Sure, some unsuitable candidates will be attracted and apply but that doesn't mean that they will be enrolled. The past image of a fighting soldier /sailor /airman wasn't always representative of the make up of our armed services. There were LGBTQ+ etc serving and serving well, it is high time that exclusion based on unconscious bias and plain bigotry was consigned to the dustbin of history. Having done that, the armed services can widen the field of recruits, having more recruits to chose from will probably mean that the quality of selected ones will be higher.

[Scamp]

Hello Scamp

You have a lot to say on D&I and uniform for someone so new to the forum. I wonder what your Cricklade background is. Welcome anyway.

I came here to the forum to post a picture of the chinny memorial in the Falklands, but forum rules dictate i need to post 10 times to allow that, so have visited a number of discussions to get my quota up. As a previous poster some years back (BTS70) i had to apply for new membership due to email change, often look never felt the need to post on regular basis.

Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?

I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.

I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.

You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.

I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.

[NutLoose]

But as recruitment is failing to meet their targets, does that not also tell you they are targeting the wrong demographic?

[t43562]

I think it depends on how you see a war effort - as individuals who kill or something like a team. In the end the whole population is the team and to get it to be equally committed it must think it is going to be equally treated. If you don't care about that your national effort won't be at it's highest possible level and you might lose.

[NutLoose]

I came here to the forum to post a picture of the chinny memorial in the Falklands, but forum rules dictate i need to post 10 times to allow that, so have visited a number of discussions to get my quota up. As a previous poster some years back (BTS70) i had to apply for new membership due to email change, often look never felt the need to post on regular basis.

Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?

I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.

I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.

You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.

I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.


I cannot fathom it out either why anyone should query a new guys posts, stay around, :)

EX RAF Eng Tech now multi trade licences, nominated Engineer , Chief Engineer and chief bottle washer licenced on several hundred types and still enjoying it…. Bar the damn paperwork. ;)

[Gne]

Letter in the DT on 4 Jan 17 from Lt Col Ewen Southby Tailyour is relevant.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/497x613/armed_forces_diversity_6821295e33c3e8d1461a10fb7a8a813b53fdf 278.jpg

[Runaway Gun]

I remember the military advertising campaign having removed any references to camouflage or combat clothing and guns, showing only volleyball, beers in the bar, and back slapping.

I also recall watching recruits refuse to fire weapons in basic training - saying “I didn’t sign up for this!

Dare I say it, but military advertising should be more truthful, if they wish to hire suitable candidates.

[exrivofrigido]

Letter in the DT on 4 Jan 17 from Lt Col Ewen Southby Tailyour is relevant.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/497x613/armed_forces_diversity_6821295e33c3e8d1461a10fb7a8a813b53fdf 278.jpg

He’s rather missing the point though. ‘Representing society’ does not mean that we have to compromise on the physical, behavioural or professional standards of the force. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

He’s rather missing the point though. ‘Representing society’ does not mean that we have to compromise on the physical, behavioural or professional standards of the force. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.

Well said Ex.

Some points as a general observation:

1) Promoting a sense of inclusion and having diversity in your force does not mean changing your entry standards *where those are directly related to job requirements that are legitimate*.

2) The wider your recruitment pool, the higher your entry standards can be. We all know that aptitude test score requirements, as an example, go up and down depending on how many people have applied that year (i.e. an applicant has to be competitive within their cohort). The bigger the cohort, the higher the standards can be (which some people seem to struggle to understand).

3) A common complaint is that advertising always includes the 'minorities'. This is simply a method of normalising to the target audience the fact that people in 'minorities' can and do serve, which in turn increases the likelihood they will apply to serve. See point 2 above.

4) The argument that having a diverse and inclusive force, including spending some time reflecting on the fact that it's a good thing, somehow decreases your fighting power is a totally non-sequitur statement. As many have pointed out, the military as a whole is considerably more diverse than 40 years ago, spends some time thinking about that, and yet we still see them going out the door at an ever increasing tempo that would break a lot of people. The evidence there speaks for itself.

5) There are quite a few roles in today's mob (looking at you, cyber) who are just as vital to national security as infantry, but their job will NEVER involve closing with and killing the enemy, because they can have a far greater impact from their normal place of work. Why the hell shouldn't we recruit anyone who can do the job into that role, regardless of their ability to run shuttles between 2 lines at an ever increasing pace?

[Finningley Boy]

I think it depends on how you see a war effort - as individuals who kill or something like a team. In the end the whole population is the team and to get it to be equally committed it must think it is going to be equally treated. If you don't care about that your national effort won't be at it's highest possible level and you might lose.
The whole population isn't the team, we're a Liberal Democracy, that means we have to accommodate a sizeable chunk of the population who will never understand any justification for relying on the armed forces for doing anything, or only in certain circumstances. The leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, often thought of as the kind of moderate who would take his party back to the centre ground, is not someone I would trust of Foreign and Defence Policy.
The reason is, having checked his voting record, and assuming it to be correct and accurate, he has consistently voted to oppose military action against Isis/Daesh, cast your mind back to the threat they posed back in 2014, he has also consistently voted to oppose deploying British Forces on overseas operations, under any circumstances. But there are people who would vote for his party in a General Election who couldn't give to hoots about that. The nation is diverse in all kinds of ways, the Armed Forces would be better recruiting with a sense of honesty rather than trying to emphasize attracting a mindset which might join out of curiosity or even with genuine interest before leaving after feeling misled, possibly the reason for poor retention. The Western Democracies are all very much the same, they've forgotten that round pegs don't fit in square holes and vice versa. While it is fair and right that anyone from any background regardless of race and gender should be welcomed into the armed forces, the armed forces should not be emphasizing or trying to identify and associate with a specific group, to closely, by doing so, the defence chiefs are misrepresenting their profession and confusing their ethos with something else. They should recruit without fear or favour and close their eyes to the individuals religion, personal life and behaviour, leave all that out, and portray what they are about. I notice the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in their recruitment campaigns, still pursue a more honest line.

Right I'm off to the Bunker!:uhoh:

FB

[[email protected]]

If recruiting for the Forces is missing its targets then perhaps the powers that be should look at the Ts and Cs rather than the demographic spread.

Constant cuts to the UK Military, regular articles on the p*ss poor housing and the increasing reliance on the UK Mil to dig civil institutions out of the poo because their own manpower and resources have been pared to the bone don't make for attractive job prospects.

[exrivofrigido]

The whole population isn't the team, we're a Liberal Democracy, that means we have to accommodate a sizeable chunk of the population who will never understand any justification for relying on the armed forces for doing anything, or only in certain circumstances. The leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, often thought of as the kind of moderate who would take his party back to the centre ground, is not someone I would trust of Foreign and Defence Policy.
The reason is, having checked his voting record, and assuming it to be correct and accurate, he has consistently voted to oppose military action against Isis/Daesh, cast your mind back to the threat they posed back in 2014, he has also consistently voted to oppose deploying British Forces on overseas operations, under any circumstances. But there are people who would vote for his party in a General Election who couldn't give to hoots about that. The nation is diverse in all kinds of ways, the Armed Forces would be better recruiting with a sense of honesty rather than trying to emphasize attracting a mindset which might join out of curiosity or even with genuine interest before leaving after feeling misled, possibly the reason for poor retention. The Western Democracies are all very much the same, they've forgotten that round pegs don't fit in square holes and vice versa. While it is fair and right that anyone from any background regardless of race and gender should be welcomed into the armed forces, the armed forces should not be emphasizing or trying to identify and associate with a specific group, to closely, by doing so, the defence chiefs are misrepresenting their profession and confusing their ethos with something else. They should recruit without fear or favour and close their eyes to the individuals religion, personal life and behaviour, leave all that out, and portray what they are about. I notice the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in their recruitment campaigns, still pursue a more honest line.

Right I'm off to the Bunker!:uhoh:

FB

As one of the no doubt many on here who has repeatedly been deployed on those overseas operations about which you say the Leader of the Opposition has been sceptical, I can only reflect on what might have been had those in positions to provide military advice been a little more sceptical too. His position on Syria seemed clear enough to me: ‘I’m not against air strikes, as long as they’re part of a coherent strategy’ - he argued that they weren’t, which seems a fair basis for voting against. You might disagree with his analysis, but he has at least explained how he made the decision (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/syria-airstrikes-legal-david-cameron-civil-war-flawed).

More broadly, if you contend that the present lot have been efficient stewards of our fighting power, then I’m afraid I can’t agree. We seem to be in something of a muddle, both in terms of our equipment programmes and our broader purpose. The first is due in large part to inefficiency (as charitable as I can be) in uniform, but political interference plays a significant role too. And the second is political/strategic, and that really does point to Government.

Anyhow, the broader point is not that the Army is ‘pandering’ to anyone. We’re trying to strengthen the team by reducing the instances of our people harming one another at worst, and failing to form cohesive teams at best. It is interesting to note that Russia has done likewise - they recognised that the appalling conditions that prevailed in a conscript force paid exploitative wages and bullied by feral NCOs did not contribute to fighting power. The Russian army of today is better paid, better led and rather more professional than they were a generation ago.

[NutLoose]

. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.

Well, that’s depressing reading and is indicative of the times we live in and is probably ingrained into their personality long before the military got their hands on them. My service time we all got along great, all working together as a cohesive group, it never occurred to me that the guy next to me at work was coloured or Asian, we just all got on, beer is a great leveller after a hard days work. The only difference being that gay was illegal, but again at the time it was the rules and people accepted them, though not all agreed with them. I knew one great guy who had to leave and he accepted his fate, though we were all sad to see him go as was he.

[exrivofrigido]

Well, that’s depressing reading and is indicative of the times we live in and is probably ingrained into their personality long before the military got their hands on them. My service time we all got along great, all working together as a cohesive group, it never occurred to me that the guy next to me at work was coloured or Asian, we just all got on, beer is a great leveller after a hard days work. The only difference being that gay was illegal, but again at the time it was the rules and people accepted them, though not all agreed with them. I knew one great guy who had to leave and he accepted his fate, though we were all sad to see him go as was he.

I joined more than 20 years ago, and have enjoyed my career. I have not seen or experienced discrimination, assaults or - aside from the odd moment - bullying. I wouldn’t though, and some of the stories I have heard from exact contemporaries in your service and mine are profoundly depressing. Speaking to the old and bold reveals tales of behaviour a generation or two before which was in some dark corners of HM’s forces absolutely revolting. Not by any means all, or even most - but if you’re on the receiving end it only needs to be one or two people, and the remainder to enable or even fail to notice. And it isn’t just about BHD - if we don’t use the variety of experience and perspective that our people have to offer, we simply don’t do as well as we might. We’re better than we were at including people we once shunned for ludicrous reasons, and of course we do reflect society - which means that people walk through the door with standards we have to improve.

I have always had a lurking fear that, casualties aside, one reason for the extreme youth of many of the towering personalities of WW2 was that hidebound military custom gave way to necessity, and the bright and innovative prospered.

[Finningley Boy]

exrivofrigido,

There wouldn't have been a strategy to explain to Starmer when he voted, without qualification, against the policy deploy forces overseas on a combat footing in general. This was a principal nothing more specific. As for Daesh, I don't believe he misunderstood the strategy, simply disapproved. But I believe the strategy, as I understood it was, to destroy Isis, or at least erode their capability to seize more towns and cities, expand and threaten more people wider afield. in this particular instance, I don't know what more evidence he needed of the danger of Isis to all in their path. The aerial bombing also supported Kurdish, Yazidi and Iraqi forces on the ground, we are in a far better state of affairs as a result. Isis still exist, perhaps they always will, but they are far from the burgeoning mobile force, well sponsored, by someone, and expanding with volunteers heading out from anywhere. Jeremy Corbyn was forever trying to find ways to have air strikes suspended including, at the time when the RAF were banned from bombing targets in Syria, Corbyn alluded that the RAF's efforts had little impact because of this. But he didn't mean the RAF should have been allowed to bomb in Syria, as they eventually were, he was making the case for pulling out. This tends to be the trend in the left, but I admit, the current government has a dismal record on defence and maintaining a worthwhile posture. But its all on a relative scale. But look I'm directly responsible for thread drift on my own thread!:O

FB

[popeye107]

My daughter’s course were not allowed to have a Friday morning bacon butty because of one ‘person’ that objected. Courses ahead, begin Ad and a syndicate of her course could indulge. That was the objection of a single individual.
Totally ok, because the individual felt included.

[NutLoose]

Strange isn’t it, one person in group of bacon munchers objects, no bacon butty for anyone, one smoker in group, none smokers object, smoker gets sent outside to have a smoke.

[Finningley Boy]

Popeye and Nutloose,

This seems to be the problem with what has become a religious mindset and an evangelical pursuit of righteousness, democracy has bugger all to do with it, nor indeed the rights of one individual. Its the subject at hand, if it fits with the progressive life style and doctrine (environmental concern, minority inclusion, political view etc) it prevails, if it doesn't, despite the majority in favour, its out.

FB

[The B Word]

Saw this today and thought of this thread:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x353/981a5b73_59d7_433b_8c55_25b2ef0b6d6c_bd14401fb758fba1b0089ee 6ccc32bff5af48292.jpeg

[trim it out]

Strange isn’t it, one person in group of bacon munchers objects, no bacon butty for anyone, one smoker in group, none smokers object, smoker gets sent outside to have a smoke.
Not a scientist but I don't think being in the presence of a bacon butty being eaten gives the non eater cancer in the same way passive smoking affects non smokers. Of course the bacon butty eater could go and stand outside with the smoker to engage in their habits in peace and quiet.

[Finningley Boy]

Not a scientist but I don't think being in the presence of a bacon butty being eaten gives the non eater cancer in the same way passive smoking affects non smokers. Of course the bacon butty eater could go and stand outside with the smoker to engage in their habits in peace and quiet.
Well in the examples provided, there'd be a whole bunch of Bacon Butty munchers and one refusenik? Therefore, the the odd ball who doesn't like Bacon should go and stand outside with the smoker! That way democracy wins, the one out of step in each crowd goes outside to either avoid the unhealthy habit of the majority, or as the case may be, to avoid the healthy habits of the majority.:ok:

FB

[exrivofrigido]

My daughter’s course were not allowed to have a Friday morning bacon butty because of one ‘person’ that objected. Courses ahead, begin Ad and a syndicate of her course could indulge. That was the objection of a single individual.
Totally ok, because the individual felt included.

Well that’s just silly. And has nothing whatsoever to do with diversity - just bad leadership. ‘Inclusion’ in such a case might simply be recognising that not everyone eats bacon. I suspect most of us would think it pretty rude to assume so, and would provide an alternative for them what don’t.

[trim it out]

Well in the examples provided, there'd be a whole bunch of Bacon Butty munchers and one refusenik? Therefore, the the odd ball who doesn't like Bacon should go and stand outside with the smoker! That way democracy wins, the one out of step in each crowd goes outside to either avoid the unhealthy habit of the majority, or as the case may be, to avoid the healthy habits of the majority.:ok:

FB
I'm still slightly surprised that bacon sandwiches were banned because someone objected. At an RAF station I was working out of a few years ago we used to have bacon sandwich Fridays, paid for by the OC and cooked on the George Foreman in the crew room. They only fell by the wayside because the holding officer responsible for the purchase, cooking and cleaning up of the event was selfishly removed to go and continue his flying course.

As Exrivo has said above, it seems a case of weak leadership to ban the buttys (wouldn't survive the Daily Mail test surely?)

[Finningley Boy]

I'm still slightly surprised that bacon sandwiches were banned because someone objected. At an RAF station I was working out of a few years ago we used to have bacon sandwich Fridays, paid for by the OC and cooked on the George Foreman in the crew room. They only fell by the wayside because the holding officer responsible for the purchase, cooking and cleaning up of the event was selfishly removed to go and continue his flying course.

As Exrivo has said above, it seems a case of weak leadership to ban the buttys (wouldn't survive the Daily Mail test surely?)
As a regular absorber of the Daily Mail I'm Bluidy sure it wouldn't pass the DM test. I can see the front page spread now, a row of glum faces around a big Bacon Butty with a big red cross superimposed on it and the headline; "WOKE GONE MAD! Now the snowflake Brigade have our Bacon Butties in their sights!!! Comment from Richard Littlejohn, the Pub Landlord and Peter Hitchens inside, pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9."

FB

[Tengah Type]

With reference to Bacon Butty Eaters/ Non Eaters, was this a Vegan issue? Can Vegans now dictate what everybody else consumes
and must we all adopt Vegan principles? Perhaps the next step is for a member of Alcoholics Anonymous to insist all service (and civil)
establishments are dry.
If it is religion based, can other religions ban eating beef for example?
Surely we should be trying to foster Cohesion, Tolerance and Teamwork, NOT allowing a new and different approach to alienate people!!
Lets try the Old Adage - Live and Let Live. It seems to work in most cases. Bullying and Discrimination is not tolerable in any situation.

[MPN11]

Well said!

[BEagle]

Well, funny you should say that, TT...

In the Oxonian Green Republic, the following bolleaux recently took place:

An Oxford City Council Green party councillor has ruffled feathers for calling for all meetings to provide solely plant-based food. He also urged for more plant-based options to be served in schools across Oxford. Now, the plans have been approved and the Green Party has banned meat and dairy from all official council events.

The councillor called to educate more young people about the ethical, environmental, and health implications of their food choices.

Can you imagine that happening in your part of the world?

[Tengah Type]

Beagle
If the steak is what is called "Rare" in UK, out here it is considered as being cremated!! Also comes with a large range of accompanying
vegetables ; to whit Fries and a little Salad garnish. Usually accompanied by a very pleasant locally produced "Fruit Juice"
I do not know of any French Vegetarians, let alone Vegans. There are probably a few, but they stay well hidden!!

Anyway why should Vegans be allowed to persecute animals by eating their food!

[Cat Techie]

I came here to the forum to post a picture of the chinny memorial in the Falklands, but forum rules dictate i need to post 10 times to allow that, so have visited a number of discussions to get my quota up. As a previous poster some years back (BTS70) i had to apply for new membership due to email change, often look never felt the need to post on regular basis.

Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?

I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.

I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.

You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.

I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.

Welcome from someone that was in from 1984 to 2009, Did one hot op with clasp in 1991 with printed history and was at Basrah when Baz was killed. Done the **** that a lot of the cold war warriors never saw, including Nutty that I have little time for his politics. I saw good men being kicked out even though they did their job brilliantly and were not a threat to the service in what their personal interests were. Worked with others when the rules changed and found out they were. They were professional. If you were not interested, they were not going to offend you. There are nasty people on here. Some real dinosaurs. I rarely post as have little time for them.

[NutLoose]

Here we go again… you do not know what I was involved in or my full career, ahh clasps, got one of those and in rank I believe the medal precedes those of the gulf wars etc, but this thread is not about that, so take a chill pill and get back on subject please. Different times different conflicts. So please if you want to take pops at me please do it by all means in PM’s, but stop doing it and ruining threads, it does not become you.

I have yet to see a nasty person on here… the odd one needs help, but nasty, no.

I cannot fathom your comment on my politics, I have said in this thread each to their own and they should have freedom of life choices to live their lives as they choose as equals without any stigma or bigotry, God made us all equal, men and women are the ones that screwed that one up.

​​​​​​…

[minigundiplomat]

All I ask is that you tell me if I turn into Beagle……

[Bob Viking]

Can we backdate it and tell you when it happened?! 🤣

BV

[minigundiplomat]

Can we backdate it and tell you when it happened?! 🤣

BV

damn …… mess webley and a single malt beckons

[Bob Viking]

That’s the spirit. Military ethos, right there.

BV

[Finningley Boy]

Here we go again… you do not know what I was involved in or my full career, ahh clasps, got one of those and in rank I believe the medal precedes those of the gulf wars etc, but this thread is not about that, so take a chill pill and get back on subject please. Different times different conflicts. So please if you want to take pops at me please do it by all means in PM’s, but stop doing it and ruining threads, it does not become you.

I have yet to see a nasty person on here… the odd one needs help, but nasty, no.

I cannot fathom your comment on my politics, I have said in this thread each to their own and they should have freedom of life choices to live their lives as they choose as equals without any stigma or bigotry, God made us all equal, men and women are the ones that screwed that one up.

​​​​​​…
If I may say further, and to clarify, the effort being made by the service chiefs is to a laudable aim, but by lecturing and enforcing what to and not to show enthusiasm for, is going about it the wrong way. They should stick to the simple line, you're all one team regardless of your personal life, interests, etc and should and will work together as one professional team. But that doesn't appear to be the approach. Like political pressure groups, they are dictating personal feelings and causing division in the process, the very opposite of their aims. The ads that NutLoose posted demonstrate the problem western nations have reconciling the military image with the societies they serve. The American and British ads aren't designed to recruit for the armed forces, or the army in particular. Their emphasis on promotion of the LGBTQ wouldn't be out of place if that was the point, but in a military recruitment drive it drowns out the whole reason for recruiting to the armed forces.

Cat Techie and Scamp, I bow to your service in the face of the enemy, and that of anyone else, regardless of what they do to alleviate the boredom in their own free time. But what do you think the Greatest Generation would make of this? I wouldn't want to generalize, but those who fought in the Second World War might, in some cases, take a more old fashioned view. They oversaw and enforced the rules barring Homosexuality after all. But I will give you both 10 out of 10 for your command of in house jargon! ,

FB

[charliegolf]

But what do you think the Greatest Generation would make of this?


They would think it was a crime (it was) like theft or fraud or ABH; and therefore had no place in the service, cos 'right-minded' people didn't do those things.

There is no link to 'them' and 'this'.

CG

[Finningley Boy]

They would think it was a crime (it was) like theft or fraud or ABH; and therefore had no place in the service, cos 'right-minded' people didn't do those things.

There is no link to 'them' and 'this'.

CG
It was the same throughout my time in the RAF, I've accepted the change, but today's service chiefs are losing all perspective in their quest for a more enlightened approach, again, not that the more enlightened approach is wrong. When I joined, all the service chiefs were WW2 veterans, to me they aren't outside of living memory, and certainly not their immediate predecessors, so there is a link. But I am alluding also to the comments made by Scamp and Cat Techie which suggest it is 'their generation which proved themselves in the face of fire, perhaps its the bungling of latter day politicians that put them in harm's way alongside a fistful of defence cuts? Therefore, is their moral opinion supposed to trump all? As I've said, it is all about perspective and proportion. However, I will say one thing and Cat Techie would certainly appreciate this having joined in 1984, Scamp as well, the years of RAF service from the end of National Service (I'm partially assuming as I didn't join until 1977) all the way through to the early 1990s, were the very best. We had the Cold War to thank for that and the substantial military balance between East and West. That has long been lost and, as I alluded, is largely responsible for all the disastrous conflicts across the Middle East we've had recently, for which, for the record, I entirely blame the West's Politicians, namely, Bush Jnr, Blair and Biden, these three in particular.

FB Off to the Bunker a second time:ouch:

[trim it out]

Having had a sit down and read of the OpO I think it could be a productive day, providing there's a decent buy in (funnily enough most of the push back I've seen has been from 40+ year old WOs, fear of being called out? :E).

Slightly frustrating that so much effort has gone into IT the last couple of years but you have to access the material on a personal device so that MODNET doesn't get overloaded. Not really a surprise though, JPA has been L/R for the last two weeks with intermittent access too :rolleyes:

[Blue_Circle]

Surely we should be trying to foster Cohesion, Tolerance and Teamwork, NOT allowing a new and different approach to alienate people!!.

That is precisely what OP Teamwork is aimed at. Those who've posted previously with their fear of the latter are either out of touch or stirring the pot for whatever reason.

Having had a sit down and read of the OpO I think it could be a productive day, providing there's a decent buy in (funnily enough most of the push back I've seen has been from 40+ year old WOs, fear of being called out? :E).

I've been voluntold to led a discussion group at my establishment, and I'm quite looking forward to hearing what people have to say. I think we're a pretty welcoming and amenable bunch but we (some of our old(er) farts, self included) definitely have room for improvement.

[trim it out]

I think we're a pretty welcoming and amenable bunch but we (some of our old(er) farts, self included) definitely have room for improvement.
See if you can drop "metathesiophobia" into conversation :8

[NutLoose]

That is precisely what OP Teamwork is aimed at. Those who've posted previously with their fear of the latter are either out of touch or stirring the pot for whatever reason.


I posted the links to the adverts not against Diversity and unity etc, but just to highlight the diiferences in recruiting in different countries, ours seems slightly at odds with what you are trying to recruit folks for if that makes sense.

I don't fear change, change is good, that's what evolution is about, I was going to say it is irrational to fear metathesiophobia, but one didn't want to take the wind out of trim it outs sails ;)

[finestkind]

Agree with comments that chiefs are that far out of touch that the inclusive requirement's are so that we no longer have a a military who's business is about what the military does but who's business is now about inclusion and mandatory training. Once one of our many PM's (OZ) stated "diversity is our strength". So divided we stand united we fall? Very much like most democratic government's. There is no such thing as a majority. The multitude of diverse fractions in a party means there is not one flag to rally around but a multitude. So how do you pick your cause were do you put your effort into. This appears to be mirrored in our military with no surprises considering the masters that have to be obeyed. I think most people would agree if you can do the job than I do not care "what you had for tea" (what your life preferences are). And when we do not have enough metathesiophobia than we have change for the sake of change in the appearance of moving forward. Wonderful account of how the military was rearranged and how this and that was changed all achieving nothing but the appearance of improving and wasting time with the reduction in capabilities. At the end it was signed Biggus Dickus (actually some Roman General 400BC?, which for the life of me I can no longer find) when I thought I was reading a current statement. Shows change has not changed since change began.

[Haraka]

Petronius Arbiter " We trained hard"
Committed suicide ( to avoid being assassinated).

[Barksdale Boy]

I don't understand why people need to use the word metathesiophobia when "fear of change" will do just as well - metathesis is an entireyl differetn mattre. Someone (Nat King Cole or perhaps Louis Armstrong - I can't quite remember) once said "I don't like two-dollar words: they stink the place up". It's hard to disagree.

[finestkind]

I don't understand why people need to use the word metathesiophobia when "fear of change" will do just as well - metathesis is an entireyl differetn mattre. Someone (Nat King Cole or perhaps Louis Armstrong - I can't quite remember) once said "I don't like two-dollar words: they stink the place up". It's hard to disagree.
Ohh BB. I agree when two-dollar words are used to show superiority and so called intelligence but when used as word play for fun it is a different matter.