Airports forcing troops to change on tarmac?
Update from t'other side
Over on Arrse the OP has posted that the instruction was passed to the pax by the pilot. (link at post #1)
From whence it came, still no indication.
From whence it came, still no indication.
I was in SHANNON airport before christmas and contrary to this country being pacifist there were 2 large aircraft old Lockheed 1011 ??? full of US troops and on entering the buildings they all wore US Type Desert Cammo rig and NO ONE OBJECTED, the airport authority even made special clearway provisions to the terminal from the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I'm sure it would be in this country too. Surely no law abiding tax paying citizen of the UK would object to seeing their own troops in an airport. The only people who would have a problem with is maybe some of the oppositions recruits possibly found in the vicinity of BHX. 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down everybody! Try to see it from the side of the average member of the UK public. Remember that the majority of the UK population opposed the US/UK invasion of Iraq, but nevertheless the government went ahead anyway, ordering the attack against the will of the people who elected them. Of course the military had no option but to follow the order (once the Attorney General had magically declared it legal). But that does not mean that the public is obliged to suddenly change their opinion and support the policy, especially now that the initial sceptism of the public has been proved correct in the view of most wise observers. Whether you like it or not, it is fairly inevitable that a lot of people who do still do not support the policy, the carnage and the expense, are going to translate their anger at the misrepresentation of their views and the mis-spending of their taxes into disregard and antagonism to the military. So I don't think it would greatly help the situation for military or government at the moment to have huge numbers of uniformed military in public airports at the moment.
Before you start flaming me, don't argue with me, the above are not my personal views - just an observation. I think that you should direct your anger at Blair, who ultimately ordered the attack, at Scarlett who produced the famous "dodgy dossier", and at Attorney General Goldsmith who declared the attack "legal". Once those three are investigated and held to account, I expect much of the public anger will subside. And if Sir Richard Dannat really wants to stand up for the military, he should stop blaming the long suffering tax-paying "public" for not supporting them, but should instead demand a public inquest into how Blair/Scarlett/Goldsmith lead the UK into the war, against the clear democratic will of the people.
But if you must have my own view, I think that one of the great things about Britain and the British military is the way the military does such a good job when it is asked to do so but does not strut and preen itself in public!
Before you start flaming me, don't argue with me, the above are not my personal views - just an observation. I think that you should direct your anger at Blair, who ultimately ordered the attack, at Scarlett who produced the famous "dodgy dossier", and at Attorney General Goldsmith who declared the attack "legal". Once those three are investigated and held to account, I expect much of the public anger will subside. And if Sir Richard Dannat really wants to stand up for the military, he should stop blaming the long suffering tax-paying "public" for not supporting them, but should instead demand a public inquest into how Blair/Scarlett/Goldsmith lead the UK into the war, against the clear democratic will of the people.
But if you must have my own view, I think that one of the great things about Britain and the British military is the way the military does such a good job when it is asked to do so but does not strut and preen itself in public!
Last edited by richatom; 26th Dec 2007 at 17:57.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there are any security issues at Birmingham at all. It's not to the best of my knowledge used for large numbers of trooping flights and this flight was a diversion anyway. In terms of overall security - it's impossible to make anyone transiting to or from an airport secure. Whilst a large number of the British public didn't support the war - the support for the troops themselves is a different thing. I cannot see that anyone would voice any discontent at the troops transiting the terminal .Anyway don't most airports have security ? Are the population of Birmingham and surrounds a perceived threat on the level of the Taliban or Al Qaeda?
Basically someone at Birmingham or in the forces has a backbone problem!
Happy Christmas BMX
Basically someone at Birmingham or in the forces has a backbone problem!
Happy Christmas BMX
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a civilian perspective, the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a political issue. You are either affected by it or not, and if you are not you either agree or disagree with what the government are doing. The airport security executive has no obligation to support Foreign policy and MOD operations. His job is to use appropriate measures to maximize security at his airport. He obviously perceived an increased risk in allowing his airport to be seen, by all and sundry (particularly the bad guys), as an APOD for the military. Perhaps this was not the first time that the army has passed through his airport.
So, did he get it wrong, or did those above him who set the policy get it wrong?
Whether we like it or not, the British military is not currently seen in the same light as that when we fight for our sovereign territory. Individually, we currently receive respect and admiration, but as a military body (such as a ship, regiment or a squadron or even a planeload of soldiers) we are nothing more than a manifestation of debatable government policy and we, as a political tool, cannot demand nor expect universal appreciation by our own civilian community. Indeed, some of them even want to kill us.
During the N Ireland troubles we were ordered to civilianize our clothing in public. We didn't complain, then, when we had to change into civvies while traveling around the UK. The PIRA didn't use suicide bombs. They left the bombs in cars and other containers in places associated with the MoD (and, sadly, purely civilian locations) where we we had a (slim) chance of finding the devices. Now, we face lunatics (born here in UK) prepared to carry the explosives on their body and as a consequence we have absolutely no chance whatsoever of intercepting a suicide bomb in a UK airport. We now have only 2 methods of preventing an explosion at any given location: intelligence and risk avoidance. If you believe that a regular visible military presence at an airport increases the risk of that airport becoming a terror target, you have to accept the fact that we have to become more discrete in those areas and hopefully avoid the threat of a bomb killing our kids in one of our airports. We want to fight these lunatics in their backyard, not ours. It is for the greater good.
If we do not want our lads, en masse, to change out of their uniform in an undignified manner, we have to either travel in civvies or choose only military alternate airfields.
As an apparently lone voice, I hesitate to click on the submit button...
So, did he get it wrong, or did those above him who set the policy get it wrong?
Whether we like it or not, the British military is not currently seen in the same light as that when we fight for our sovereign territory. Individually, we currently receive respect and admiration, but as a military body (such as a ship, regiment or a squadron or even a planeload of soldiers) we are nothing more than a manifestation of debatable government policy and we, as a political tool, cannot demand nor expect universal appreciation by our own civilian community. Indeed, some of them even want to kill us.
During the N Ireland troubles we were ordered to civilianize our clothing in public. We didn't complain, then, when we had to change into civvies while traveling around the UK. The PIRA didn't use suicide bombs. They left the bombs in cars and other containers in places associated with the MoD (and, sadly, purely civilian locations) where we we had a (slim) chance of finding the devices. Now, we face lunatics (born here in UK) prepared to carry the explosives on their body and as a consequence we have absolutely no chance whatsoever of intercepting a suicide bomb in a UK airport. We now have only 2 methods of preventing an explosion at any given location: intelligence and risk avoidance. If you believe that a regular visible military presence at an airport increases the risk of that airport becoming a terror target, you have to accept the fact that we have to become more discrete in those areas and hopefully avoid the threat of a bomb killing our kids in one of our airports. We want to fight these lunatics in their backyard, not ours. It is for the greater good.
If we do not want our lads, en masse, to change out of their uniform in an undignified manner, we have to either travel in civvies or choose only military alternate airfields.
As an apparently lone voice, I hesitate to click on the submit button...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richatom,
I'm sorry, but that argument just holds no bearing. From everything i've seen, the British public is intelligent enough to differentiate between political will, and men and women putting their lives in danger in the line of duty. (and those that aren't that intelligent read the Sun, which has done a pretty good job of supporting the military
)
That kind of weak-willed political view, and lack of big-picture view is EXACTLY what has caused this to happen - whether it be in airport management or chain of command (the latter i fail to believe!)
Last summer i was passing through a US airport and witnessed a standing ovation for two very humble-looking USMC guys. The lump in my throat rapidly gave way to anger a how the UK treats its troops in instances such as those mentioned above.
To those who can - get a grip!
Uncle G
I'm sorry, but that argument just holds no bearing. From everything i've seen, the British public is intelligent enough to differentiate between political will, and men and women putting their lives in danger in the line of duty. (and those that aren't that intelligent read the Sun, which has done a pretty good job of supporting the military
)That kind of weak-willed political view, and lack of big-picture view is EXACTLY what has caused this to happen - whether it be in airport management or chain of command (the latter i fail to believe!)
Last summer i was passing through a US airport and witnessed a standing ovation for two very humble-looking USMC guys. The lump in my throat rapidly gave way to anger a how the UK treats its troops in instances such as those mentioned above.
To those who can - get a grip!
Uncle G
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Ginsters,
It is not "weak-willed". Simple facts. The current engagements of the UK military are not popular, never were and never will be. You can't expect the UK public to suddenly treat the UK military like heroes when their action was never supported by them in the first place.
The UK military is doing the job they were told to do by the government, but the government's decision was flawed. Best thing UK military can do to retrieve the situation and to recover the support of the wider UK public is to support a public inquest in to why we ever went into these wars. Just blaming the public and trying to make them out to be "weak willed" or cowardly will just exacerbate the situation!!
It is not "weak-willed". Simple facts. The current engagements of the UK military are not popular, never were and never will be. You can't expect the UK public to suddenly treat the UK military like heroes when their action was never supported by them in the first place.
The UK military is doing the job they were told to do by the government, but the government's decision was flawed. Best thing UK military can do to retrieve the situation and to recover the support of the wider UK public is to support a public inquest in to why we ever went into these wars. Just blaming the public and trying to make them out to be "weak willed" or cowardly will just exacerbate the situation!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't expect the UK public to suddenly treat the UK military like heroes when their action was never supported by them in the first place.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well maybe you can "expect", but most will disagree! Just despising the wider public for not supporting the military action is not going to help matters. As I said, the best way to close the policy gap with the public is for Sir Richard Dannat to stand up and ask why the military was ever misled into such a catastrophe. If he does that, then problem over!! I expect the public sympathy would swing rapidly behind him and the military.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an apparently lone voice, I hesitate to click on the submit button...
Uncle Gimnster hit the nail on the head
the British public is intelligent enough to differentiate between political will, and men and women putting their lives in danger in the line of duty
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just despising the wider public
As it happens, I have great respect for the general public (as I thought my original post inferred). What does make my blood boil are those in positions of power/responsibility who make decisions based more on either how it will make them look or so as not to upset anyone, than on what actually makes sense - that, in my view, IS weak-willed!
My final post on this topic as I think that ultimately, we are in agreement - this practice is wrong!
Season's Greetings
Uncle G
Originally Posted by wg13_dummy
The only people who would have a problem with is maybe some of the oppositions recruits possibly found in the vicinity of BHX.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"When we bow to the terrorist, they win. They are winning now"
Depends how you define terrorists. The IRA were defined as terrorists in the UK for many years. But to much of the US they were "freedom fighters". I remember being on an exchange visit to US Army in 1990s, sitting eating at a US Army mess table on St Patrick's day, and US Army came around shaking tins for IRA!! As we now know, the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes and a more accommodating by UK govenrment has stopped the pointless bloodshed and led to peace in NI.
You can draw analogies with the situation today if you are broad minded enough....
Depends how you define terrorists. The IRA were defined as terrorists in the UK for many years. But to much of the US they were "freedom fighters". I remember being on an exchange visit to US Army in 1990s, sitting eating at a US Army mess table on St Patrick's day, and US Army came around shaking tins for IRA!! As we now know, the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes and a more accommodating by UK govenrment has stopped the pointless bloodshed and led to peace in NI.
You can draw analogies with the situation today if you are broad minded enough....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not on my aircraft!
As the Captain of an airline that sometimes works for the MOD I can assure you that I would do all in my power (and push my luck to do a lot that was not) to stop this sort of politicly correct nonsense.
The problem is that the military is too concerned about public opinion and folds to the numptys who push this sort of rubbish. It's quite surprizing how quickily the PC types run away and hide when you tell them to F.O.
I urge any officer faced with such P.C. rubbish to put up a "robust" responce.
I for one am proud of the work that all the British forces do................ I wish that I could say the same of the support that the forces get from the goverment and the part time minister for defence!
The problem is that the military is too concerned about public opinion and folds to the numptys who push this sort of rubbish. It's quite surprizing how quickily the PC types run away and hide when you tell them to F.O.
I urge any officer faced with such P.C. rubbish to put up a "robust" responce.
I for one am proud of the work that all the British forces do................ I wish that I could say the same of the support that the forces get from the goverment and the part time minister for defence!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bangor international in the US even has a welcome group for all homecoming troops providing free drinks cookies etc
http://www.flybangor.com/troopgreetings.html
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richatorn
At the time the great majority of americans at the time had little knowledge of politics outside the US interest. What they did with the IRA was wrong, but the information was sponsered and condoned by successive US governments'
So are you now concerned that the great british public believe that Al Queda and the Taliban are freedom fighters? Bye the way, not one british muslim I know believes anything other than they are murderers who are harming Islam. We are not allowed to fly our flag as it is seen as racist, so now our troops cannot wear the uniform they are prepared to die in (and many have), for fear of upsetting someone. just what are we fighting for?? freedom? its a joke!
The british public have prooved they support our troops, by the great receptions they have put on recently for Regiments returning home, and as I mentioned on another thread, when travelling on a train recently next to a few lads in desert cam, I handed them a can of beer each and said thanks for what they were doing, and everybody around them started clapping.
Stick your head in a bucket of sand, and you won't see anything!
At the time the great majority of americans at the time had little knowledge of politics outside the US interest. What they did with the IRA was wrong, but the information was sponsered and condoned by successive US governments'
So are you now concerned that the great british public believe that Al Queda and the Taliban are freedom fighters? Bye the way, not one british muslim I know believes anything other than they are murderers who are harming Islam. We are not allowed to fly our flag as it is seen as racist, so now our troops cannot wear the uniform they are prepared to die in (and many have), for fear of upsetting someone. just what are we fighting for?? freedom? its a joke!
The british public have prooved they support our troops, by the great receptions they have put on recently for Regiments returning home, and as I mentioned on another thread, when travelling on a train recently next to a few lads in desert cam, I handed them a can of beer each and said thanks for what they were doing, and everybody around them started clapping.
Stick your head in a bucket of sand, and you won't see anything!
Last edited by Tigs2; 26th Dec 2007 at 20:28.