Much more like it SFFP! Off now to continue this level of humour with my children!

You sure you will be able to grasp what they are on about southy :p

That is why I train on here - it is a great help, that and Dora the Explorer!

How times change, back in the day, we were ALL dead keen on "Health and Efficiency"

http://www.henaturist.net/joomla/

South Bound
Not true actually. Uniforms were originally intended to enable the identification of friendly forces on the battlefield and have since become a method of personal concealment. Shaving and keeping hair short was for hygiene purposes - it prevented the spread of fleas and lice and subsequently allowed medics to treat wounds without having to remove hair from the area.

If the military were all about looking good we'd go to war in DJs :cool:

Looks like this fella forgot to pack a razor.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...85_207850q.jpg

So going on your statement above, why do we bother to wear rig in camp? (Sorry, wear uniform on base).

Nice come-back but I dont think you've really made a convicing argument regarding military people being grossly overweight.

Are you saying its ok for military chaps and chapesses being grossly overweight regardless of them being able to do their job?

Is being military just about being able to do your 'designated job spec'?

Surely the fatties should be doing something about it rather than spending all their time posting about why they should be lard arses on here?

WG:

I warned you...

On the bright side, with all the energy being expended on coming up with excuses and typing them out for you the "usual suspects" are getting a better workout than they've had in years... :D :D :D :D

Keep it up... You'll have them fitting in their flying suits before you know it... :E

Blimey - this has gone mad in last few hours.
I will re-iterate my point (say it again) so that the gym-posers might at least try to understand.

1. You saw a couple of tubby blokes in the feeder at Shawbury.

2. You decided they were clinically obese.

3. You decided that they were wheezy and couldn't do their jobs.

4. You decided that they set a bad example to their students.

This is without knowledge of their medical cats or fitness test results. This is without seeing them perform their duties. This is without being taught by them.

I'd say that is at lot of inference (guessing) from one fact.

I'll make an inference (guess) of my own. By calling them loadys [sic] (from the latin (an old language)sicut in this context (setting) meaning your mistake not mine) you have never worked with SH crewmen.

Try these scenarios:

1. Take a "tubby" who is good at his job, medically sound and can pass the fitness test. Being thinner and fitter would be an advantage whilst legging it after a shootdown - absolutely true. Contrast that person with a gym-boy who smokes. He would be fitter and better able to leg-it etc if he didn't smoke. Also he is setting a bad example to the health of his juniors, as well as looking awful - shall we chuck him out too? Or do we accept that if both can pass the fitness test and do their jobs to the level that the service require then that is acceptable. Any improved performance offered by giving up smoking/pies is between them and their respective consciences (inner moral values).

2. These "tubbys" may well be medically downgraded after years of loyal service with broken backs, knees and necks - all attributable to the lot of an SH crewman. Consequently they cannot maintain the fitness and deployability criteria demanded by the frontline. Shall we simply chuck them out or put them in a suitable post where they can pass on years of experience and can-do ethos, whilst winding down towards retirement?

Just think a little more - it might be you one day?

wg13
Two reasons:
1. It allows easy, at a glance identification of people who should and should not be on camp. Wouldn't you look harder at someone fiddling with an aircraft if they were in civvies? (contractors notwithstanding)
2. It's an historical hangover which has continued due to the basic psychology of the military mind (a different matter to the individual minds of those in the military in most cases!). See Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence", chapter entitled "Bull!!!!" (chapter 8 I think, don't have it here with me here in the sandpit) for further explanation.

Thank you but that wasn't the aim of my post. I was simply pointing out that if the individual can do a job and his/her being overweight, grossly or otherwise, has no effect, then there is no problem.

Quite the opposite: they must be able to do their job regardless of their being overweight. If their being overweight means they cannot do the job (e.g. fitting down the load hatch of a Puma) then there is a problem to be addressed.

Define "being military". Is it anything to do with "being professional"?

Why? If they can do their job and are an effective part of the military machine then they are taking their pay in good conscience.

Brian - well said.

PTT - I can see you have been reading Warburton's 'Thinking from A to Z' in order to identify an ad hominem argument - by the time you finish colouring in the pages from B to Z you might even produce some reasoned arguments of your own instead of relentless 'cut and paste with criticism' efforts.

Maybe that cutting and pasting was your exercise for the day - you should go and have a lie down.

Fat people in uniform look sloppy and unmilitary, regardless of their capability. Sadly much of that capability is often wistfully remembered from days of yore when they weren't such fat knackers. If they are good at their job as porkers, they could be good at their job and look military as well if they stopped eating so much. And, Shock Horror, they might even be better at their job if they were carrying less weight around.

Unfortunately our fitness test is crap and most only aim to reach the easy target standard rather than see how far they can beat it by. At the point I can't pass it to the standard expected of a 20 yr old (I'm 46) I will consider myself a double fat knacker and do more phys until I can.

Obsessive? No. It's just a matter of personal pride which I believe goes along hand in hand with professional pride. If you are a slob in your personal life, those same poor standards are far more likely to affect your professional life.

Healthy body = healthy mind anyone?

PS It's Per Ardua not Per Lardua

So, the crux of the argument here rests around what you LOOK like? That's the only thing I'm hearing here, once the bull!!!! is weeded out.

Let me get this straight - your complaint is that these fat f**kers don't LOOK military enough for you? I have worked with plenty of fat blokes over the years - I've never come across ONE who couldn't do his job because of his weight. You are ASSUMING that this crewman would have trouble 'humping and dumping' in the back of a helo just because of the way he looks? I guess we could save some money then, by chinning off STANEVAL, if you're good enough to assess someones ability in role with a mere glance.

You are saying that anyone who strays from your idea of what a 'military' person should look like should be binned, regardles of how capable they are in their role? You, my friend, have your priorities all to cock - I'd be very wary of doing any kind of Op with the likes of you.

And I would LOVE to see you tell a bunch of unshaven, long-haired 'hooligans' that they didn't look 'military' enough for you - and walk away with your teeth intact!

Sounds like you spend alot of your time 'pulling knobs' - mainly your own, in front of the gym mirror.

Who gives 7 shades of sh!t what somebody LOOKS like? It's a war, not a fcuking beauty contest.

Indeed.....Too many US war movies?

The key point here is that being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline.

If members of the military do not have the self discipline to look after their bodies it doesn't bode well for their professionalism... Yes that does not automatically mean individuals are not professional in their duties - but it's not a good first impression.

I do not expect people I work and fly with to be able to do the Commando course but in a 'war' (as you eloquently put it) - if we end up next to a burning wreck under contact I've effectively got a casualty straight away if fattie can't keep up with the break contact drills. That puts the rest of the crew at risk (and is easily avoidable – by not having someone incapable of running 100m with kit on the crew) and is not something I am prepared to deal with.

That is the point gents and I find it genuinely disgusting that people here can argue for the ridiculous notion that being fat is better! The only argument being that blokes who go down the gym might injure themselves or spend less time learning the job than a pie muncher.

I pray I never have to work with your ‘professionalism’.

Loadies fat?
They were only slightly podgy when i left the mob 2 years ago, surely the RAF has cut the amount of packed meals for flights enough, to ensure theyve lost the weight by now? :}

Inquisitor - I have worked with a few 'hooligans' in my time and I've never seen a fat one.

Blending in with the locals or being unable to wash/shave etc due to doing close surveillance is not the same as eating double pie and mash every day - unless you are undercover on an elephant seal colony:)

Poiltely_amused,

I don't see people arguing that it is better to be fat. I do see people saying that medical cat, fitness test and continual on-the-job assessment are better criteria on which to measure someone's ability to perform their role than the arbitrary once-over that guidedweapon was advocating. Moreover, the crux of his indignity appeared to be the presentation rather than the substance.

Everyone could be fitter if they spent more time training. You may have set your own level that happens to be above that required by the service, crab@saa has certainly done so by achieving the levels for those much younger - good for both of you. However, you appear to be saying that those who don't, or who can't, set the same standards are ill-disciplined; even if they meet the level required by the service.

The nub of the argument is that unless someone is about as fit as you, or fitter, they are unprofessional. This could equally be applied to flying ability, professional knowledge or CRM. Playing devil's advocate - unless you are about as good as me, or better, in all those disciplines then you are unprofessional. You can't say "but I meet the standard required " because you have already rejected that argument.

Try it another way - Do you advocate folks doing sport during working hours? Instead of getting their heads in the books? Or only after their supervisors are happy that their professional standards are satisfactory (there's that same argument again).

I agree that grossly overweight is bad, but some of the jockstrappers need a reality check on the relative merits of this one aspect versus all the other attributes that go to make up a good operator.

"We only get so many heartbeats in life - I don't like wasting mine on exercise" - Neil Armstrong.

The point you all seem to miss is that you need to be fit to operate in the worst possible circumstances. That would be all out combat, (with an enemy for those that miss the point here), at close quarters. When it comes down to that you expect the people around you to support you but if they are too unfit to be able to do so your life is further at risk.

Gentlemen, whether you like it or not you joined a fighting force. Not a force the "projects it's air power" but a fighting force because, believe me, their airships will hand you a gun and tell you to get in a trench and fight if they see fit, (see what I did there). Despite what you may think the RAF is not a flying club for your personal pleasure and to pay the odd bill here and there.

The fact that you are prepared to spend so much time solidly defending unfitness despite the undeniable health benefits clearly demonstrates the depth of your lack of self respect and discipline.

I often said that should my a/c go down, depending upon the pilot, I would most likely go off on my own because I would be safer. The number of people that I would leave in this thread indicates that things have certainly not improved. No-one is saying that you are required to be a racing snake... But at least demonstrate that you try... It's the lack of trying that is probably more off-putting than incessant pie eating.

AA you still dreamin the live then?

"The number of people that I would leave in this thread indicates that things have certainly not improved"

The folk you refer to are currently serving, walking the walk and talking the talk. You on the other hand chose to leave so do not sit in your armchair pontificating on something you obviously didn't have the minerals to see through :=

Bloody civvies :rolleyes:

Seldomfit,

It comes to us all mate. :)

But some go with good grace Ebloke and get on with their lives whilst others..................:rolleyes:

Brain - nobody has said guys need to be gym monkeys, size zero or marathon runners - there is nothing wrong with carrying a bit of extra weight either (I've been doing it for years) but GW was criticising guys with physiques so at odds with what one might reasonably expect from someone in the Armed Forces that they become ridiculous.

It is possible to be 18 stone and very fit (see international rugby players for example) but they don't have several michelin tyres of fat stored round their midriffs and they do a shedload of phys every day to stay in shape.

You don't look at some 20 stone lardie with a lager in his hand and think 'I bet he's good at his job' do you? You think 'Fat git, needs to spend less time in the pub' If you think it is the right image for the RAF to project then you belong in a very different RAF than the one I joined 26 years ago.

crab
Warburtons make bread, don't they? :rolleyes:
Seriously, yet another attack on something that isn't my actual argument, i.e. they way I am making my argument, does not go any way towards actually rebutting the argument itself. I could tell you the Latin name for the logical fallacy you are making but you'd have to look it up in your bread-maker's book.
I used the cut/paste/respond technique so that those with brains which would not fit into a jam jar can tell which point I am actually referring to when I attempt to refute it. Since this is clearly not to your liking I will, for you and for now, refrain from the technique.

You have further made the assumption that since I have defended the right of people to be fat that I must be a fatty myself ("Maybe that cutting and pasting was your exercise for the day") - something of an unreasoned response. And yes, I know I cut and pasted that quote :p

Please tell me if I misunderstand, but the argument stated by you (and others here) seems to me to have started out as "fat knackers can't do the job". I responded that I did not care how fat people are so long as they can do the job. You now seem to be responding with "fat people look unmilitary". You have also added a second point that they might be better at their jobs if they were thinner.

For your first point, "looking unmilitary" is a matter of personal opinion. Some skinny people are perfectly capable of looking unmilitary and could remedy this by buying an iron and actually using it, and getting a haircut, but I don't see you haranguing them here. Short people are also at a disadvantantage, and yet you are not exhorting them to grow. Smoking most certainly looks unmilitary (and also has health risks comparable with being grossly overweight), yet you do not extol the virtues of a nicotine-free lifestyle. I can therefore only conclude that the "looking unmilitary" argument you forward is false - a smokescreen, if you like, for the fact that your problem with fat people actually stems from elsewhere.
Also, one person can only look "more miltary" or "less military" than another. There is no absolute scale of "militariness" where you can mark someone out of ten for how military they look - it's subjective. One person may give a particular subject 8 out of 10 for "military look" while another person would give the same subject a mere 6.
Due to the lack of an absolute on the scale of "militariness" someone can only look more or less military than the average military person, so there will always be "less military looking" and "more military looking" people. It's like height - people are only tall or short compared to the average. If the rest of the population was 5ft tall I'd be a giant - it isn't, so I'm not.
Finally, I refute the idea that "looking military" (by whoever's definition) is a reasonable goal in itself. Like I said before, mostly in jest, if the aim of the military was to look smart we'd go to war in DJs. The aim of the military is not to "look military", it is to be military.

Your second point regarding the ability for people to do their jobs better if they were thinner may well be valid. People could also do their job better if they didn't smoke, were taller, better looking and less ginger ( :E ). I look forward to you campaigning against all these maladies in due course.
On a more serious tack, fitness (which is what I assume you mean by "being thinner" - correct me if I misunderstand here) is also not an absolute - one person can only be more or less fit than another. We can, however, measure fitness in many ways, most of which are relevant to only one type of fitness. The RAF has set a standard it expects people to meet on some of those scales. If people manage to reach that level then who are you to demand more? Meeting that level is part of the job - having a certain BMI is not.

Finally, a genuine well done to you for maintaining your fitness so far, but your health will fail you one day and, from the amount of pride you appear to have in it I suspect that you will be in for quite a fall when that happens.

Politely_amused
Well, smoking also suggests (to me) a supreme lack of self-discipline. To some drinking alcohol suggests the same, just as leaving the toilet seat up suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to many women. I am not ranting at smokers and nor is my girlfriend ranting at me about the toilet seat: it's called tolerance (although it's also because my girlfriend is several thousand miles away right now!)

If your first impression of someone is your lasting impression then you need to look deeper - the problem is with you, not with them.

As I have said before, E&E is a part of the job - be fit enough to do your job.

Who said that? Certainly there are times when a little extra lard can be to one's benefit, but I think we've all agreed that fat is not "better". I'm merely arguing that it is not always unacceptable.

A_A
Agreed. So stop smoking, boozing, eating red meat, and sleep 8 hours a night. No? Lifestyle choices, all of which have an impact on your health and all of which can be curbed by self-discipline. When I see you ranting about these things then I might take you a bit more seriously. In case you missed it, we joined the military in order to defend those self-same lifestyle choices: I like the odd tipple and also red meat, and I do not want to pray five times a day or be a part of a dictatorship (hmm...). I defend those choices by being in the military and my lifestyle is acceptable to the military.

Feel free fella. You are certainly not what I need as the albatross around my neck when I'm evading an intelligent and persistent enemy.
Oh, my mistake - you're not even in a position to be able to do so, are you? Enjoy the armchair.

Sorry crab but I need to quote this one:
Which "one" here is doing the expecting and how were their expectations formed? Surely what you are talking about is actually prejudice: "one" expects people in the military to have a certain image which fits the model in "one's" head and "one" gets upset when this is not the case. Examples:
1. He looks lardy: he is unprofessional.
2. He looks Arabic: he is a terrorist threat.
3. He is ginger: he smells of wee. :E
The RAF "image" is for the RAF Corporate Comms people to sort out, not you and not I. If people are getting the wrong image then we have the wrong Corporate Comms people.
(PS - apologies to all the strawberry blondes out there, all in jest. I'm going to keep doing it though!)

Armchair warriors!!!! Don't you just love them? If the RAF wish to pay a fat loady to hand out butty boxes or teach new loadies to voice marshal then bring it on. Oh crap my flying suit just split whilst I was picking up the doughnut I just dropped.:E

Cripes. No wonder the Royal Air Force is going to the dogs with spin like that, PTT.

Civvies - Acceptable to be lardies.
Armed Forces - Not acceptable to be lardies.

You can write as many papers as you like on it, PTT but some things just aren't quantifiable.

Keep defending the rites of the fatties. It's obviously a 'life style choice' of theirs that they simply don't want to come to terms with. :ok:

And yes, it does look unprofessional.


Do the RAF Corporate Comms people include grossly overweight bods in the PR blurb?

I am going to withdraw gracefully from this one. Parting shot:

Assuming the everyone meets a minimum standard of fitness as laid down by the service. I'd rather be in an Air Force where the common attributes amongst the aircrew are excellent flying skills - built on the basis of a first class flying training system - that nourishes our traditional characteristics of flexibility, innovation, self-reliance, cunning and wit. I'm happy to live with the demographic variation of physiques found amongst such a group.

What I don't want to be part of is an organization where the common characteristics are anchored in physical prowess, with the attendant demographic variation being in all the cerebral attributes that make us the Royal Air Force and not the US Marine Corps.

Must go - time for my body pump class.

wg13
Simply saying it's spin doesn't make it spin. I believe it's a logical argument: if you see flaws in it then please point them out. I'm not adverse to changing my mind if I see a compelling argument.

I would disagree:
Civvies - do what you like within the bounds of the law.
Armed forces - do your job and ideally do it well. That job includes passing the fitness test! If you don't do the job then you are not being professional.

Looking professional is an irrelevance, maybe a nicety. Being professional is what counts.

If things aren't quantifiable then why are you ranting about them? Because you don't like it? Nice attitude unless you're CAS!

I don't know about the Corporate Comms blurb - not read it in a while. I doubt it does include them though. But then that's what PR is for - presenting the image you want presented. Spin, if you like :ok:

PTT - How I would love to be in your chain of command to bring to bear some of your 'reasoning'.

I say again being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline. That is very hard to argue against. If people wish to smoke or drink - that is up to them and (surprise, surprise) the forces also have rules for that.

And Brian, having worked with the US Marine Corps, their exceptional professionalism and bravery under the conditions they have fought under in Iraq over the last 4 years on tours up to 15 months long is something that you will obviously never understand.

I'm not ranting, just agreeing with the common sense shown by some on here.


As some have quoted on here, the RAF fitness test isn't exactly a challenge. And as some have also said, people do find ways of getting out of doing it. I'll wager those that have found a way around it are the ones it was originally aimed at - the salad dodgers. Long queues outside sick bay prior to the test with lots of 'back problems and twinges in the leg' no doubt.

Oh, silly me! So we're NOT about projecting air power after all? I look forward to your letter to CAS petitioning him to re-write AP3000, then.

The RAF IS a fighting force - but we do not (and will never) 'fight' the way the army does - we are not trained to do so, nor will we ever be required to. I can guarantee you that NO RAF aircrew will EVER be required to go running around the bondu, digging trenches, and tabbing for miles whilst carrying ridiculous amounts of kit. Yes, we are trained to E&E if the situation requires it - and I can guarantee you that, regardless of how 'lardy' one of us may appear, they will have no difficulty getting out of a burning aircraft and tabbing 2k if the Talitubbies are up our arses - this I know from experience.

The RAF fights by projecting air power, and doing so does NOT require that we are fit enough to get into close-quarter combat with an enemy - if we ever end up in that situation, somebody somewhere has fcuked up. Anybody you see out on ops, regardless of appearances, has passed the fitness test to the level required by OUR service and is, by definition, "FIT FOR PURPOSE". People paid alot more than you and I have deemed this to be sufficient, so who the fcuk are you to tell them (and us) that it's not good enough?

This 'soldier first, specialist second' mentality that pervades the army (and, in all honesty, serves it well) does NOT apply to the RAF. We are SPECIALISTS, pure and simple, try to understand that. We work differently to you, and as such have different requirements of our personnel. Nobody here is saying that it is better to be a lard-arse, just that it is NOT a barrier to service if you are fit enough for purpose (as defined by RAF leadership, NOT army). But then again, the army has never been able to see any viewpoint but it's own - THAT is an indication of severely limited capacity that would bar YOU from servivce as RAF aircrew (different requirements, see?)

Strange, though, how our waistlines don't seem to trouble you if we're coming in, under heavy fire, to pull YOU out of the sh!t.....THAT is what WE do, and we do it well.

The point is this - please, for once, get this into your heads - 'JOINT' does NOT equal 'ARMY'.

Oooer, saucer of full fat milk for the lardy above. :rolleyes:

You forgot the pies. How on earth are they expected to keep the ever expanding waistline going if all you offer is milk?

Alright then - a curtain call and some backtracking.

In no way did I mean to denigrate the US Marine Corps for it's professionalism or bravery. I am not a Yank basher and unreservedly apologise if offence was caused.

My point was the USMC are renowned for their physical prowess. They are soldiers in jets and for that reason the British Army holds them as a model for what it thinks the RAF should be like. However, their air power is solely configured for support of it's ground forces and they are often difficult to integrate into the wider air campaign. Many functions are performed for them by the USN and USAF so they can afford to concentrate on what they are good at. With broader responsibilities the RAF should not try to emulate the USMC and should uphold it's own traditions and characteristics, one of which is higher regard for brains than brawn.

Late for body pump now - it'll have to be Pilates instead.

See my theory for E&E is this, I don't need to be as fit as wg13 and all his gym queen chums (target rich environment AT!) , all I have to do is shoot him in the leg at the start, the perusing force will stop and gather round him and I'm away to eat another day

Once again RAF brains v Army muscle

Politely_amused
What? :confused:
Does this mean that you'd like to use your rank to silence me when I say something you disagree with? Oh for the joys of equality on Pprune :ok:

Actually it isn't.
Being grossly overweight suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to you. It may not to others. Smoking suggests a supreme lack of self discipline to me - it does not to others.
Feel free to disassociate your opinion from facts at any time :)

I'm aware of a rule regarding fitness: pass the fitness test. Do you want a rule in place about fatness as well? Why? What relevance does it have?

wg13
Correct, the fitness test isn't a challenge, but the levels set are the levels set. Who are you to decide what they should be?

You can wager what you like, but until you have a shred of evidence to back it up (and no, so-called "common sense" does not count as evidence) then you are merely hypothesizing and possibly slandering, on a public forum, numerous people with genuine medical conditions such as back problems.

And "saucer of milk" is hardly a reasoned response... :rolleyes:

OK, gents, this is becoming very counter-productive now, especially so soon in the wake of improved Army-RAF relations following the BBC 'One Life' documentary.

The British Army are bloody good at what they do - and it requires a high level of fitness. The RAF are also bloody good at what WE do - and it does not. Let's just leave it at that.

Appearances bear no real relevance on the battlefield. I'll now bow out of this discussion.

Evidence? Evidence that if you walk (thats transporting your self without the aid of a vehicle) past an RAF sick bay prior to a fitness test, its conveniently and suspiciously full of a lot of growbag wearing (and non growbag wearing) types waiting to be signed off as sick. I don't think you need to be the MO to realise some of them are truly swinging the lead.

Slanderous? Have a word. Daft comment from a professional arguer no doubt.


Who says this is an Army v RAF debate?

As far as I'm aware, I'm the only pongo commenting. The others on here who are commenting on fatties not being a good example (which is what the original thread was about) are, as far as I'm aware, RAF.


As per usual, the topic has been pushed away from the subject at hand - people being fat not setting a good example to the young types.

Fat and military don't go together. I'm suprised some of you are putting so much effort into arguing that they do.

From what some of you are saying, RAF and military don't go together. How embarrassing.

Spot on, in the sense that to some in the Army military = "the Army way" which is why 'Purple' formations frequently have problems. There is more to being 'military' than shouting orders, doing drill and running assault courses - most of the better army types on joint units know that and let the other services get on with their bit.

If I went onto an Army web site and tried to lay down the law on how infantry tactics should be changed I'd be told to !!!! off because I have little inf experience

So if someone who's never been in the RAF.......

I wasn't aware that this was an RAF website.

I'm sure it says 'Military Aircrew' at the top.

If thats the case and you're RAF, you've just suggested that you aren't military, maybe its you who should..........

These boys look fit and smart enough. However, I am not too sure about the hand on hip adopted during the right dress at 1.17min running time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbpI7WQkF0