Maybe HMS Nottingham had too many Salad Dodgers on board!

We live in a "yooth" orientated "I'm out 4 myself" entwined with Warhols immortal words "Everybody will be famous for 5 minute" culture I'm afraid.

The ratings actions were to be expected, given the general low standards of the RN, compounded with no doubt inadequate training, totally inadequate ROE (other than Faye Turney smoking as the Iranians approached... my god!), and most certainly no BOI. You can be sure the Senior Officers are diving for cover under the wardroom table. After all promotion prospects comes before anything else, thats for sure.

Playing table tennis, watching footy, clutching goody bags, bleating about their inhumane treatment. It's more that a disaster, its a f*ck*** tragedy.

Des Browne's "I'm responsible although I'm not responsible" b*llsh*t scares me even more. Such a spineless classic NuLabor character. They have absolutely no shame.

My heart goes out to those four lads and lasses we lost. Don't we owe them, and others before them (and to come) some sense of decorum and decency.

Flash, yr anger comes through as some of your assertions are possibly unfounded.

Now I am no naval discipline expert but, given the Nottingham example, a courts martial for anyone involved serves to publicly exonerate or blame. The former is very much a naval ethos matter.

Now in the recent incident, losing a couple of boats, 15 SA80 rifles, some radios, a dodgy GPS, a matelot's IPod and a few people, would also seem worthy of a courts martial, simply to exonerate those that might be in the frame.

But who to court martial? The Captain for not authorising a clearly inadequate search party? The Ex O for CAC training? Or the UN Force Commander for improper tasking?

As the later was on board the vessel at the time, where does this leave the Captain?

Shallow waters and clearly very muddy.

flash8

re your "general low standards of the RN" quip.

stick it up your @rse.

Flash, you are in a way correct. Brother works in multimedia for BSkyB - going round the news desk at the moment is a story that apparently the Navy Lt, after his interview with the Sky news team asked "Who should I approach about auditioning as a weather presenter?"

He's convinced its a fact but I have too much faith...:sad:

Don't you think it might just have been banter following a viewing of this?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...tives_203b.jpg

Banter which Sky were too dull to appreciate? :hmm:

Sorry, can't find equivalent pic of Lt Carman

Flash8, you say:
You perhaps forget that they were explicitly told that they could be paid for their stories. To a rating on sub-£20k and in those circumstances, that's tantamount to saying "Off you go - with MODs blessing", surely?

It doesn't make it right, and it should never have happened, but Turney and Batchelor are getting FAR too much criticism for my liking - criticism which they are consequently chaffing for someone else...

As for the personal insults on here - have a word with yourselves. :=

I have been watching this story and thinking that our RN boys and girl have been somewhat hijacked. The simple fact is that they were captured, released a certain amount of information, probably thought that they were going to die at various points all in the service of their country. In my opinion, they are brave and their story deserves to be told. The press wanted the story so what is wrong with them having it - it was actually good news that they came home alive and it makes good reading to have the odd bit of good news. The reaction by the MOD to a few questions from some sectors of the public has managed to blow this whole thing up into a mega press story and our serving members of the RN have come out of it very badly.

I thinkt that they should have been able to sell their story - lets face it every other senior officer who has commanded a battle (often well away from the front lines) seems totally justified in cranking out a book. I noticed today, that Gordon Brown has just published a book about bravery (note: a book about bravery written by someone who has never had a sniff of combat and who comes from a party which oozes insincerity and half truths) it seems that he is not under the microscope for cashing in on his fame when he should be spending more time looking after our brace troops who earn very little for risking all.

Perhaps leaving the guys to make a bit of cash would have allowed them to stay in the service and pass on the valuable lessons learned to others as per John Nichol and Peters. Now I suspect they will all leave feeling very much the scapegoats of a watch your six mentality of the senior civil servants and politicians.

RN guys, well done, you survived and lived to tell the tale. I would like to sit around a bar and listen to your stories over a couple of pints.

OK, I apologize for the cheap RN jibe, it was out of order. Just frustration.

It was clear that some of them (RM?) held their chin up, took no sh*t and didn't wave at the cameras (indeed they scowled.. well done lads!) as they were leaving the Military Big Brother fiasco.

I wasn't critical of their post release behaviour (distasteful as it may be) but their conduct in captivity. It was, to say the least, inappropriate, and I'd say (flames welcome) shameful.

If they tried to "fit" me in one of their shiny suits as I'd left I'd tell them to f*** off in no uncertain terms.

As Army, many years ago, we would have relished a good punch up, and creating as much interference as possible. How times change.

The RN is taking some fairly big hits on this thread over the mettle of it's people following the hostage situation. I think it's telling that the same people who were duped onto camera were the same people who were duped by the MoD PRO's and the press into thinking that selling their stories was a clever thing to do. Anyone who believes that a naive young airman or squaddie wouldn't have done the same thing in similar circumstances is a fool.

As aircrew, we received conduct after capture training. Most of us like to think that as with the Tornado crews we would have had to take a severe kicking at least before we were scared or beaten enough to appear on TV. The Royals probably had some training, the Ship's crew would have been lucky if they had a lecture on conduct after capture, so they went in with nothing but pre-conceptions of torture, no knowledge of interrogators tricks and with only their intelligence to rely on. Unfortunately, some people are better armed in that regard than others. The interrogators aren't stupid, they pick on the weakest and ignore the rest. The media were despiccable (quelle surprise!), the first news I heard on the story was that the hostages included a woman who had a child! Thank you very much for that gem say the interrogators, she's our girl. That journo really should get a quiet warning shot to the back of the head. The Officers and NCOs saw through the tricks and their only crimes were against fashion for wearing those suits.

As to why it happened in the first place, well we all know why the RN is patrolling the S-A-A. If the Americans were there, war with Iran would be a certainty in days. That is the one thing no one can afford and that is why our guys don't even have the RoE to use strong language - talk about lambs to the slaughter. This is a government started and government finished gold-plated f##k-up and blaming two naive sailors (and lumping in the other 13 who have kept their traps shut) is pointless. Of course they made a mistake, but the system should have prevented it rather than encouraging it. They're Naval careers are effectively over, quit with the inter-service point scoring.

The 15 hostages held in Iran did no less than is expected of HM Forces when held hostage, seemingly under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention. We have moved on from the era of "I cannot answer that question" and Name, Rank and Number. It is better to use the controlled release of non-operational information to appeal to the humanity of the captors rather than alienating yourself from them. Having never been taken hostage, I cannot begin to imagine what it must have felt like and for those who haven't, i don't believe we have sufficient knowledge to pass judgement on the "Iranian 15's" commitment to the service etc..

Also, with regards to selling their stories... why not? With the Navy able to offer advice and control the dealings with the media it ensures a more reliable account for the public. Let's face it, if they hadn't sold the story the media would have got one anyway from an ex, a third cousin etc..

Posted as it seems some may not be aware of what some press are reporting.

MoD plotted story sale while hostages were still in cells
By JANE MERRICK - Last updated at 08:39am on 13th April 2007

Days before the British hostages were freed by Iran, the Defence Ministry was already planning how their stories could be sold.
Officials devised a detailed strategy on how to deal with media bids even as Faye Turney and her fellow captors were languishing in cells in Tehran, a senior Whitehall source has told the Daily Mail.
The Defence Ministry were planning how to sell the captives stories when they were still in Iran
The revelation severely undermines claims by Defence Secretary Des Browne that he did not know in advance about the controversial decision to allow the accounts to be sold.
Insiders said it was inconceivable that he - and in turn Tony Blair - would not have been aware of the plan.
It also shows how, far from being pressured by the media, the MoD took an active part in controlling events.
Conservative MP Mark Lancaster, a serving Major in the Territorial Army, said: 'The more we delve the worse it gets. It is one thing saying they were forced to react in a difficult situation, but to actively plan is an entirely different story and I have great concerns about that.'
Mr Browne is becoming ever more isolated as he prepares to give a statement to the Commons on Monday. The Prime Minister cut him adrift on Wednesday by claiming to know nothing of the decision to break military precedent and allow the freed Marines and sailors to profit.
Last night Downing Street released a statement saying officials - including director of communications David Hill - played no part in the negotiations.
At the same time Foreign Office officials expressed their 'distaste' at the way there appeared to have been an 'overt' strategy to encourage Faye Turner and Arthur Batchelor to hawk accounts of their 13-day imprisonment for large sums.
It was previously thought that the decision to allow the sailors to cash in was made by the Royal Navy within hours of their arrival at Heathrow last week.
At the time, Second Sea Lord Vice Admiral Adrian Johns said the Navy had been forced to give in to pressure from the media 'waving big chequebooks around in front of them' and added: 'The decision was taken by the Royal Navy and then referred up the chain to the Ministry of Defence.'
Mr Browne has claimed he had only 'noted' the decision on Friday April 6, two days after the captives were released, and suggested the Navy were to blame. Mr Blair has insisted he knew of the move on Sunday April 8.
But the Whitehall source said a 'media strategy' had been in place for days because the MoD had already started to receive media bids.
Whitehall documents further undermined Mr Browne's claim that the Royal Navy took the key decision to allow the stories to be sold.
Orders issued two years ago insist that any media interviews must be cleared by the head of news management at the Ministry of Defence before a decision is taken - suggesting Mr Browne's officials endorsed the move.
The rules were introduced after the inquiry into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly, who had been accused of talking out of turn to the BBC.
Lord Ramsbotham, a former director of public relations for the Army, said: 'My experience, certainly during the Falklands War and during the Beirut experience, was that everything was referred to Number 10 of some magnitude like this.'
Downing Street, however, continues flatly to deny being involved at any stage.

So the Daily Hell has jumped to the conclusion that sensibly planning how best to deal with the intense media attention should the captives be released means the MOD was actively trying to sell the stories?

For :mad: 's sake, credit us with some intelligence. The MOD always plans for how to deal with the media. The Daily Wail is finding an issue that doesn't exist. Selling the stories was a colossal error of judgement, not a premeditated act of marketeering. I'm as pi$$ed off as anyone else about this, but I'd prefer it if newspapers would get their facts straight; that said, in this case it looks as though every fascist's favourite newspaper was actively trying to deceive people by equating "media strategy" with "unseemly money-grabbing scheme".

Odd that the Hellish Mail should be complaining about this, anyway, since it was the most aggressive and cash-laden paper of all when pursuing LS Turney...

Browne went AWOL as hostages sold stories
 

The Telegraph - 1156pm Sat 14 Apr 07

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...nbrowne15a.jpg

I applaud them. Sell their stories. Write a book. Appear on Parkie.

The defence Chiefs have all done the same for many years. Just because you are a chain smoking, overweight Naval rating should not prohibit you from doing exactly what your senior managers have done.

There are many sanctimonious types pontificating about the honour of the service or their own -personal 'standards'. But if you replaced The Sun with Macmillan publishing and swapped £100k payment for a £400k advance you'd find their honour and standards are open to variation.

Anyone who is a lawyer works for the guilty in contravention of their beliefs in return for money.

When the financial welfare of your family is at stake I look poorly on any man
who doesn't grab the money.

The Service isn't what it was. We all know it. We all lament it. But there's no merit in condemning the 15.

None at all.

WWW

The Minister of Defence!!!!
 

The Minister was shown on TV and the D.Telegraph coming out of an office wearing a suit that had been tailored in the suq at Bandar Abbas.I saw it was hoping that was his demob suit.:ok:

Meanwhile the real story is slowly sinking into the sunset. The story that involves just why such a seemingly hastily put together and ill-prepared team was sent out such a distance in inflatables in the first place. And why their 'air cover' (the chopper) returned early. Didn't the Iranians show up on the radars of the Task Force?
Am I right in thinking that there was a BBC camera team on board the Cornwall at the time. This, based on the interview the BBC did with Turney '. . . two hours or so' before the mission.

Many of the reactions I see here convince me that timing is everything, for I read a post on the main board just after the 15's release asking what seemed to me a reasonable question about whether some reactionaries might use this incident to question the wisdom of putting females into situations with a high risk of capture, if, (as some were asserting at that early stage), some of the males rolled over so quickly because they felt they had to protect their female colleague from the proverbial fate worse than death.

I can't say who the poster was, because the moderator pulled the post, and if my recollections are even halfway accurate, the post was almost uncontroversial compared to most of the posts I see here now.

(And PLEASE, before anyone lets loose a broadside at me for mentioning what seems to be the unmentionable, I too am in awe of Sgt Rachael MacDonald, who displayed more balls than I think I'd have in the situation she so ably handled.)

But I think the poster whose post was deleted has a point - did the presence of a female among the captives complicate the situation for the others, and in particular the officers, both at the point of contact and again after capture?

I suppose while I'm stirring murky waters, I may as well ask the other unmentionable question: unfair as it may be, (and please note that proviso, but we know life's anything but fair, particularly in the services), should they decide to stay in the service after this unfortunate incident, what credibility will the two officers have with any men who will serve under them in future?

And I suppose I should close with a wish similar to the one I expressed in an earlier post on this thread: I really hope all the finger pointing at the 15 will not allow the senior people - both uniformed and civilian - who put them in such an impossible situation, to escape answering some very searching questions they need to answer.

Re the 15: the term 'tethered, sacrificial goats' is one that comes immediately to mind – (and I’m referring as much to their situation post-release as to the one they were put into that allowed them to be captured).
(Edited for spelling and grammatical errors.)

Wiley, I think you will be OK in your wish. The media seem in full flight against the Government and Dismal Des.

True they would have anticipated lines to take (If they really did think that far ahead - what do you think?) on the other hand some bright spark, like Jo Moore, may have thought what a great opportunity.

Anyone read Alan Bastard in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph? Indeed what has happened to the Cash for Honours enquiry?

Also, I loved Christopher Booker's apology to Patricia Hewitt. She had been quoted as saying that it was shocking that Faye was shown smoking in Iranian TV - sending quite the wrong message to youth in UK. Poor diddums had not noticed it was 1 April.

Anyway, certainly proves smoking does not depress the appetite, nor keep you thin.