Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Wear it with pride !

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Wear it with pride !

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 06:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yorks
Age: 64
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wear it with pride !

Seems you MAY now wear your hard earned uniform in PeteBogHorror once more, overturning a disgraceful decision.

BBC NEWS | England | Cambridgeshire | City's RAF uniform ban is lifted

edited to correct a spelling error, and my point, such as it was has been covered at length elsewhere, about servicemen and women being both allowed to and proud to wear their uniforms in public. SOME civvies, myself included (albeit from an RAF family) are proud of our armed forces.

F.ck, this place is full of self righteous a.sholes !

Last edited by tezzer; 23rd Jan 2009 at 09:00.
tezzer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 07:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems you MAY now wear your hard earned unifirm in PeteBogHorror once more, overturning a disgraceful decision.
The incorrect spelling and 'witty' re-naming of the city would probably detract from your point - if you had one. In what way was taking action to ensure the security of personnel 'disgraceful'?
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 07:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The situation was under regular review - as one would expect. One would not expect details of that review or the situation as it has changed to be made public. That would just be stupid and pointless. Or do you think he should have made the work of the security forces public?
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 07:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Morning Hiney,

Interesting to see that ".. the findings of the review have now permitted" the ban to be lifted. One speculates what the passive review based the decision on. The Group Captain doesn't mention any further measures which were sought or implemented so was the situation that perilous in the first place?

I guess this will confirm to many, that the ban was a bit of a knee jerk reaction, especially as RAF recruiters and army walk around with uniformed pride and there have been no subsequent reports of hassle. This of course, aside to the principle of the decision in the first place which we, I know, see differently.

And lets face it, it is a Peat Bog Horror!
Al R is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 08:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hiney said: The situation was under regular review - as one would expect. One would not expect details of that review or the situation as it has changed to be made public. That would just be stupid and pointless. Or do you think he should have made the work of the security forces public?
I don't see why any review shouldn't be made public because it involved handling a 'simple' alleged assault, which as far as I know now, isn't sub judicae. I imagine any review would be more likely to address management issues involved, which might explain the lack of detail. Putting on a civvy jacket before leaving the unit is hardly top end counter terrorism stuff or involves inserting undercover donkey jacket clad SIB operatives into the murky depths of the London Road (which might need a little discretion by comparison!).

Addressing the manner of how the review was handled though, is getting off the point.
Al R is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 10:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was led to believe the "cover up order" was made following a more sinister event than an "alleged assault", namely the harassment of a female (military) nurse as she left the MDHU (where she worked) and which continued from the car park with her being followed to her home.

May be wrong - it is a rumour site after all. Some may have seen it as kneejerk. Bit like all those who called for the local Rock unit to go and give the locals a good hiding ....
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 11:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It wasn't me who called for that. A nurse being followed is creepy and bad, but possibly not grounds enough not to make the 'work of the security forces public'.
Al R is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 11:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The interesting thing on this is that the 'incident' supposed to have happen some 18 months before the ban came into force. Supposidly a drunken youth was seen giving a nurse verbal.

It only came to light when the local radio station aired some programme about the way service personnel were being treated by the 'public', someone phoned in and made the comments. And it went on from there.

As has been said, the AFCO guys have/had no problem with walking around town, as with the TA guys from London Road. Good on them.
romeo bravo is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 12:38
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The interesting thing on this is that the 'incident' supposed to have happen some 18 months before the ban came into force. Supposidly a drunken youth was seen giving a nurse verbal.

It only came to light when the local radio station aired some programme about the way service personnel were being treated by the 'public', someone phoned in and made the comments. And it went on from there.
The ban only came to light following the radio broadcast. The ban had been in place for some time before that. I'm glad you use the word 'supposed' so many times as it ensures your meanderings will only be treated as fact by the rabid idiots who think we should have 'sorted 'em aht ourselves'.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 12:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 1,203
Received 117 Likes on 53 Posts
The ban was brought in for reasons other than those listed in this thread.
downsizer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 14:03
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Downsizer....absolutely right....those calling the decision disgraceful haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about......
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 14:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
downsizer

Thanks for putting me right! Always thought there would be more to it than the MOD grapevine allowed. Guess that's why the truth never came out at the time, nor will be fully exposed now.

Doesn't stop a lot of people letting the truth get in the way of a good bitch/rant/outrage though!
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 15:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,719
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
a nurse doesn't have to be in the military for me to follow her........doh!
EESDL is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 15:10
  #14 (permalink)  
AR1
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 63
Posts: 710
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Anyone who was forced to wander around Lincoln wearing No 1s at 3pm Saturday closing time, would know exactly what harassment was all about! - Peterborough doesn't even come close.
AR1 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 15:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Downsizer/Jumping Jack:

What were the reasons for the ban then?
Monty77 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.