War on woke
You missed the point - it doesn’t matter what they look like, it’s what they can do as a team that counts… 
If you select them for what they look like, the chances are they will fail.
If you select them for what they look like, the chances are they will fail.
The following 5 users liked this post by iRaven:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes
on
1,219 Posts
I recently saw the army’s latest advert with the Muslim praying on exercise, I have added it below.
my question is it might be acceptable on an exercise and I wouldn’t prevent anyone following their faith, but I do wonder how that will fit in with actual combat situations, flying an aircraft or fighter etc..
my question is it might be acceptable on an exercise and I wouldn’t prevent anyone following their faith, but I do wonder how that will fit in with actual combat situations, flying an aircraft or fighter etc..
I do wonder how that will fit in with actual combat situations, flying an aircraft or fighter etc..
I suggest if one wishes to pray....time, place, and what is happening is not a bar to doing so.
Some prayers are very short due to necessity but are no less sincere for their brevity or volume.
The following users liked this post:
Here is Sir Humphrey’s take on it, although he might have some difficulty convincing the inhabitants of The Wavell Room.
I've got no time for either of the extremes in this debate. One of them routinely gets a hard time: it's easy to criticise reactionary old duffers, and the likes of Sir Humphrey will gladly knock out a blog post or social media post doing just that. D&I credentials displayed, tick, very good, applause gathered.
What's not so easy is to criticise the other extreme; attempts often draw intense and hostile counter-fire. But there's good reason for many government departments having withdrawn from the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme, and the reason is starting to get the airing it deserves in the courts (through Employment Tribunal judgements in favour of Forstater, Meade, and Phoenix among others), and very strikingly last Friday in a House of Lords debate on "conversion practices". That reason is the relentless foisting of gender identity beliefs on people who quite reasonably view biological sex as being the more significant and important discriminator between men and women and are uncomfortable with erosion of boundaries. This proceeds in ways that are overt (eg conversion of ladies' toilets in Main Building to gender-neutral - never the mens', is it? - and "strong encouragement" to put personal pronouns in email signatures) and covert (adoption of Stonewall-approved language in all sorts of hidden policies from HR to, incredibly, procurement). All of the Diversity Champions scheme guidance driving this reflects the law as Stonewall would like it to be, not the Equality Act 2010 as it is, with its carve-outs to exclude even those with gender reassignment certificates from opposite-sex spaces.
Not before time, the tide is turning, and more are prepared to go up against the "no debate" crowd and assert the primacy of biological sex over gender identity, self-declared or otherwise. If Shapps's intervention ends up with MOD breaking its ties to Stonewall then it will have done good, so more power to his elbow, I say.
If you don't believe any of this is a problem, then read this from Simon Fanshawe, a founder of Stonewall from the gay rights era, who disagreed with its stance on gender identity to the point he left the organisation. Despite being heavily criticised by trans rights activists, he's just been appointed Rector of Edinburgh University, which shows at least one rare corner of academia is escaping Stonewall's grip.
[As a depressingly funny illustration of the knots gender identity is capable of tying organisations up in, how easy and misleadingly consequence-free it is for most men to support it, and the division it's capable of sowing, look no further than the Parkrun palaver which has unfolded in the last few days:
Female runners: "It's unfair that males can declare themselves women and claim all the womens' record times"
Parkrun: "It's only a fun run. Chill."
Male runners: disinterested silence
Female runners: "So why do you post record times then?"
Parkrun: (consults lawyers) "Errr, we won't publish results and records any more."
Male runners: "WTF is this? This is not 'only a fun run'. WTF cares if there are some males running as women? Give us our data back."
Parkrun: silence
Funny: until you consider that militaries rely upon bonding people together. And making the majority unhappy to satisfy a vocal minority of activists is unwise if bonding, and in context, retention is important to you.]
What's not so easy is to criticise the other extreme; attempts often draw intense and hostile counter-fire. But there's good reason for many government departments having withdrawn from the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme, and the reason is starting to get the airing it deserves in the courts (through Employment Tribunal judgements in favour of Forstater, Meade, and Phoenix among others), and very strikingly last Friday in a House of Lords debate on "conversion practices". That reason is the relentless foisting of gender identity beliefs on people who quite reasonably view biological sex as being the more significant and important discriminator between men and women and are uncomfortable with erosion of boundaries. This proceeds in ways that are overt (eg conversion of ladies' toilets in Main Building to gender-neutral - never the mens', is it? - and "strong encouragement" to put personal pronouns in email signatures) and covert (adoption of Stonewall-approved language in all sorts of hidden policies from HR to, incredibly, procurement). All of the Diversity Champions scheme guidance driving this reflects the law as Stonewall would like it to be, not the Equality Act 2010 as it is, with its carve-outs to exclude even those with gender reassignment certificates from opposite-sex spaces.
Not before time, the tide is turning, and more are prepared to go up against the "no debate" crowd and assert the primacy of biological sex over gender identity, self-declared or otherwise. If Shapps's intervention ends up with MOD breaking its ties to Stonewall then it will have done good, so more power to his elbow, I say.
If you don't believe any of this is a problem, then read this from Simon Fanshawe, a founder of Stonewall from the gay rights era, who disagreed with its stance on gender identity to the point he left the organisation. Despite being heavily criticised by trans rights activists, he's just been appointed Rector of Edinburgh University, which shows at least one rare corner of academia is escaping Stonewall's grip.
[As a depressingly funny illustration of the knots gender identity is capable of tying organisations up in, how easy and misleadingly consequence-free it is for most men to support it, and the division it's capable of sowing, look no further than the Parkrun palaver which has unfolded in the last few days:
Female runners: "It's unfair that males can declare themselves women and claim all the womens' record times"
Parkrun: "It's only a fun run. Chill."
Male runners: disinterested silence
Female runners: "So why do you post record times then?"
Parkrun: (consults lawyers) "Errr, we won't publish results and records any more."
Male runners: "WTF is this? This is not 'only a fun run'. WTF cares if there are some males running as women? Give us our data back."
Parkrun: silence
Funny: until you consider that militaries rely upon bonding people together. And making the majority unhappy to satisfy a vocal minority of activists is unwise if bonding, and in context, retention is important to you.]
Last edited by Easy Street; 13th Feb 2024 at 07:49.
You have missed the point again, and need to see past their appearance. They make a good team despite their appearance - they make a good team because of their diversity of experience and a high level of skill. What they look like has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome…
Interesting that probably the most anti-woke military in the world, the Russian army is also inept and incompetent. …...
The following users liked this post:
Personally I am angry the ranting of of old guys who are furious that the military doesn’t represent society exactly like they remember the 1950’s is distracting everyone from the real issue, the lack of government will to adequately resource the military and the expectations that they must do more and more with less and less. This dynamic is why most Western militaries have senior leaders that are bean counter yes men, not war fighters.
The following users liked this post:
And predominently Christian/Jewish militaries can't manage to integrate operational efficiency with religious devotions? As far as I'm aware, all the major religions require periods of prayer, meditation, fasting or supplication, but the sanctity of the subject's life, and of their family, friends and colleagues, always overrides the need and timing for such rituals.
Thread Starter
I recently saw the army’s latest advert with the Muslim praying on exercise, I have added it below.
https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY_YM?feature=shared
my question is it might be acceptable on an exercise and I wouldn’t prevent anyone following their faith, but I do wonder how that will fit in with actual combat situations, flying an aircraft or fighter etc..
https://youtu.be/OQ4OoPNY_YM?feature=shared
my question is it might be acceptable on an exercise and I wouldn’t prevent anyone following their faith, but I do wonder how that will fit in with actual combat situations, flying an aircraft or fighter etc..
Mog
IIRC the Koran contains exceptions for various activities laid down (such as fasting in Ramadhan) - and they include when you're fighting, traveling etc etc
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Meanwhile, on a Qatar airliner ... flexibility is also allowed.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The first town on the Thames
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
2 Posts
Open letter against Army’s inclusivity policy
Dear Secretary of State,As retired senior officers of the Crown with experience of senior command, we feel compelled to write to you with a sense of sadness, incredulity and anger having viewed astonishing evidence of the depth and pervasiveness of the racist and intolerant "Diversity, Equality and Inclusivity" ideology being pushed within HM Armed Forces.
We see these facts, as so they are, as the perpetration of monumental self-harming and, as such, a real and present threat to national security that will give aid and comfort to the King's enemies. The sheer scale of what is reported is scarcely believable, and it cannot be ameliorated by small adjustments. It requires root and branch removal and we call upon you to order this, in pursuit of your primary duties to provide for the sure defence of our islands and citizens.
Nothing could be better calculated to destroy the esprit de corps of our armed forces than this poisonous farrago of nonsense or to deter from serving the Crown precisely the type of people most motivated and apt to our high calling. Ours is a tolerant country and this obsessive racialising of everything is both disgusting and reprehensible.
As you spelled out in your Lancaster House speech, correctly in our view, we live in 'pre-war' times; and Britain faces an ominous and darkening international scene, with Armed Forces that are underequipped, undermanned and underfunded, as we were back in the 1930’s.
Among the lunacy of pushing woke ideas around the use of "gender neutral" pronouns, or allowing male soldiers to wear make-up or flowing locks on parades to accentuate their feminine side, we pick out the wickedness of a policy to dilute security vetting in order to boost representation of ethnic minorities. With Islamism and other extremism rampant, this is nothing short of dangerous madness.
The cry for "diversity" has been utterly misunderstood. Within a military culture, what is to be sought above everything else is the delivery of "fighting power" in order to defeat the King's enemies, together with the greatest uniformity of excellence and diversity of opinion. Nothing else matters. The Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill are an object lesson of the unforced unity in all their diversity of Imperial and Commonwealth Armies in defence of freedom.
To remove Christianity from Acts of Remembrance is also a particular insult to our ancestors who fought and died to lead the world in ending slavery and twice in the last century to save our islands from conquest by extreme regimes. No one should need to be reminded that this is a welcoming, inclusive and basically Christian country. Our civic culture on 11th November is sacred, Christian, tolerant and inclusive on our terms.
The Russians, Iranians and Chinese will be observing our descent into self-hatred and obsessing over diversity and inclusion with glee. These intolerable policies are forcing the British Armed Forces into moral disarmament and it cannot stand.
We call on you as Secretary of State for Defence immediately to cleanse our military culture of these poisonous ideas and to order a complete reset back to our core values of patriotism and unity that for generations made our armed forces the envy of the world. To preserve and deepen military culture, discipline and efficiency, the Ministry of Defence should be exempted from the Public Sector Equality Duty as specified in the Equality Act 2010.
We are not civil servants but fighting forces.
Yours,
Major General Julian Thompson CB OBE
Lieutenant General Sir Henry Beverly KCB OBE
Brigadier David Chaundler OBE
Major General Tim Cross CBE
Lieutenant General Sir James Dutton KCB CBE
Major General Malcolm Hunt OBE
Colonel Richard Kemp CBE
Rear Admiral Roger Lane-Nott CB
Lieutenant General Sir Hew Pike KCB DSO MBE
Lieutenant General Jonathon Riley DSO MC
Colonel Ewen Southby-Tailyour OBE
Major General Nick Vaux CB DSO
The following 12 users liked this post by Tigger_Too:
I recall once being in a US military establishment and usinga pen that said "Made by Blackfoot Indians ". When I asked about this, I was informed that disadvantaged groups are given prioriity in procurement procedures which obviously aligns with what I wrote about Boeing above, as I imagine they were likely reacting to advice from the DoD about inclusive employers being preferred.
The following 3 users liked this post by snapper41:
Wigston probably got rid of them snapper. Well the tag team will be all over this letter because these are old soldiers and don't know about modern soldiering. As long as they can do the job eh? I read on one of the forums here that in peace times the armed forces are headed by people who are primarily administrators. In wartime these are booted out and replaced by warriors who lead. I hope to God we have some of those waiting in the wings.
The following users liked this post: