Nicknames are applied based on many reasons - including TV programmes.

There was a officer cadet intake where some of the cadets were given nicknames based on the names of the firemen in Trumpton (kids programme), namely Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub.

Dibble's stuck and that's still how is he named and called over 40 years later. Similarly "Gorky" Park was nicknamed after the book and still is known by that name - (in fact I had to sit here for a couple of minutes trying to remember their real first names).

We had a flying instructor at Barkston Heath by the name of Sercombe; all his fellow instructors addressed him as "Size." We cadets, never !

When I joined up I had a broad Cumbrian accent and the peasants from down south thought I was Welsh so nicknamed me Taff.. stranger things in life have happened, but when I then did my training at St Athan, the local commando's wouldn't touch an English boy, but as a Taff... I filled my erm Welsh boots.....

It appears that the US DOD has gone beyond mere "Diversity" under the new administration and is taking active action to confront "extremism" within the Ranks of the US Military.

Under the new SECDEF, Secretary Austin, new policies are being crafted, investigations being done, a full one Day Stand Down for a full force day of training and discussion, and other actions are causing a pushback by many members of the military and even some on a major committee formed to craft a new policy.

US Law and Constitutional protections present firewalls between the Individual and the Government's power to conduct Intelligence Operations of US Citizens (including the Military Members) inside the United States or on US Territory.

The question that first must be answered is in arriving at definitions of conduct, beliefs, and actions that would be considered concerns to the Military re "Insider Threats" or otherwise unacceptable for Military Personnel.

Is the UK MoD following the same path as the US DoD in this diversity thing?

Are our Militaries filled with radicalized persons that pose a legitimate threat?

How do we define that which is and should be considered unacceptable?

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Apr/0...KING-GROUP.PDF

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ech-crackdown/

I always thought that was a self licking lollipop in the UK, as they were deemed a security risk in certain quarters and open to possible blackmail, but they were only a security risk and open to blackmail because it was forbidden and career ending.

If it had been legalised then, the so called security risk and blackmail threat to reveal all to ones lords and masters would have vanished.

Still it did work as a get out for a few who wanted to PVR but were not allowed.

(Deleted due to my error in numbers)

When I did my USyO cse I questioned this very subject, given that it had never been illegal in UK to be Lesbian, and Male homsexuality had been decriminalised in 1967.

I was told that Gay people would sell out the Military to any enemy power because they would blame their lack of promotion on being discriminated against for being homosexual.

Talk about circular logic!

Fortunately we've come a long way in the past 20 years.

Toad,

Cite your source for the claim of "Thousands of incidents of extremism" and "White extremism has overtaken Islamic extremism as the bigger killer" so we can see that data will you?

I challenge those statements being accurate.

I and prepared to be convinced if you can document those statements with accurate data.

Allegations of that have been made by some pushing an agenda to include our FBI Director....but then we know how reliable the Senior Ranks of that organization has been of late.

No mention of any group or orientation in this DHS Release on Domestic Terrorism.....


https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/na...in-may-14-2021


One Review cited just less than a thousand incidents since 1994....a period of 27 Years....for a population of over 300 Million people.

Toad, you might check the 730 that have been slaughtered in the name of islam in the last 30 days. I would value your link for the figures on white extremism. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/a...aspx?Yr=Last30

The Insider Threat is real....but the Killers are quite diverse in many ways.

This news article begins to demonstrate that and the difficulties that exist in combating the threat.

Accurately defining the problem....and the causes....before addressing solutions is the key.

Fostering a cohesive bonding between those wearing our uniforms and serving with one another is the key.

Some. scoffed at the US Army List of Principles as being mere PR...but those very principles if applied by all would settle the "Diversity" concerns in a. way that brings us together rather than dividing us.

Teaching inclusion to the exclusion of division seems the smart way to me.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fatal-shoo...ry?id=67597032

SAS,

apologies you are correct and I was incorrect with the numbers. I will edit my post to remove my error.

A report issued jointly by the DHS, DoJ, ODNI and FBI on Mar 17 said

(U) The IC assesses that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) and militia violent extremists (MVEs) present the most lethal DVE threats, with RMVEs most likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks against civilians and MVEs typically targeting law enforcement and government personnel and facilities. The IC assesses that the MVE threat increased last year and that it will almost certainly continue to be elevated throughout 2021 because of contentious sociopolitical factors that motivate MVEs to commit violence.

Their assessment is Domestic Violent Extremism poses the largest threat to the US.

It is assessed that %13 of those arrested after the Capitol incident were either former or current military.

It is this, and the rising number of military personnel involved in DVE which may have prompted Secdef to do what he did.

Scribble, I don’t doubt that however I was discussing matters inside the US and was replying to SASless about why SecDef did what he did.

:ooh:

Rather an unfortunate turn of phrase??

I roll my eyes as much as any retired serviceman when diversity and all the other woke buzzwords are mentioned. Times change though, as do the attitudes of the people that the services serve and recruit from. The services need to adapt to survive, as they have been doing ever since I joined over 40 years ago. Reviewing service ranks is nothing new, for example the merging of the WRAF in 1994 led to new gender-neutral ranks by dropping the W in women’s ranks.

For those interested, the MoD summary at https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...s-1-april-2020 gives the state of play on the services’ composition in various identity politics categories. There are some interesting snippets, for example that the proportion of women that are officers is far higher than that for men and that only 20% of servicemen were willing to give a sexual orientation, most either objecting to the idea or thinking it was none of the MoD’s business.

The use of aviator rather than airman or airwoman seems to work well for the Canadians. One of my sons is in the MoD, albeit a civilian, and he tells me the servicemen he knows aren’t that bothered about such changes.

Perhaps it is time for a change. Whilst we’re at it, do we need to review rank titles, for example merging Flt Lt, FG Off and Plt Off into a single rank of lieutenant?

Yes, the Service has survived many changes which were described as 'cataclysmic' at the time, and is generally better for it. My concern about 'Aviator' as a term to replace Airmen is that:

1. Airman/men/women is an honourable and historic term for a rank that goes back to 1918, and I am sure that today there is no prejudice or unconscious bias by the interchangeable term Airman or Airwoman, as appropriate.
2. It sounds American, and sits up there with my favourite dislike of the use of 'Warrior' to describe soldiers.

" the Warrior Ethos of a Soldier,"

wasn't that "Bushido" in 1930-45?

Now....now.....you know they are two quite different philosophies.

https://wavellroom.com/2018/07/19/do...warrior-ethos/

Load of rubbish.

Politically motivated 'intelligence' assessments written by brown-nosing zealots with their eye on a promotion do not mean there is any real 'white supremacy threat'.

The real threat to the USA is Antifa/BLM groups battering Portland and other major cities, unhindered, for a full 18 months. The city police and feds are too scared to clamp down on them as they don't want to end up in a cell next to Derek Chauvin.

Steady there. I don't think that sort of language is necessary. Colonel is not a rank we use in the RAF.

Like many in the modern RAF, I have been under fire. I have also been held at gun point, besieged in a compound, and was commended for confronting, with my pistol, an EAG in the Balkans who had kidnapped two RAF personnel. Not many RAF personnel can claim that but I still don't like the term Aviator or Warrior and I am entitled to that opinion, thanks very much.