Suit

If you wander down to Speakers' Corner one fine day, you will see freedom of speech in action. Freedom of speech need not be enshrined in any law in order for it to flourish. Save for the laws of libel, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to commit a criminal offence and other narrowly defined public order offences, one can say pretty well whatever one wishes in this country. Long may that be the case.

By 'enemies of democracy' I was referring specifically to Irish republican terrorist groups and other international terrorist organisations.

I said that we were in the services to protect freedom of speech. We all acknowledge, in joining the armed forces (and therefore being subject to QRs and military discipline), that we are giving up some of the civil liberties enjoyed by civilians. That said, we simply tend to follow the same unwritten code of civility practiced by any employee in any workplace.

I think this site and others like it are a useful means of letting off steam and exchanging frank views. It shows we are all human and not merely uniformed automatons.

Incidentally, on joining the Service, we non-commissioned personnel also take an oath.

Broad, at the risk of turning the debate into one fo free speech rather than respectful argument, we as members of HM Forces do have to put up or shut up to an extent, and even risk life and limb when called upon to do so. I should point out that in return we should expect a degree of support from the institution to which we belong. When Ghurkas are deprived of a decent war pension in spite of their loyalty and bravery, or we are asked to fly in dangerously unservicable airframes because of lack of funds for decent repairs then I think if the brass don't speak out, it should be up to others to do so. How well looked after were the Mull of K Chinook crew? Were their reputations blackened to save an Air Rank's skin? these are real questions that need real debate. To return to the thread, issues such as these are serious, and to reduce them to slanging matches detracts from the real issue and the real message, and what we are saying is "For God's sake stop!" Debate the important issues properly so that they can be examined, and save the banter for appropriate threads, but also, know where to draw the line.

------------------
The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own Satanic HERD!

Amazing how a simple suggestion of whether we should exercise some moderation should generate such fervent views...
IMHO I don't believe that a Moderator is either necessary or effective. I do believe that as intelligent adults we should all be able to exercise a little bit of common sense (known as Effective Intelligence when I went through IOT), and whilst we should all be able to take a bit of banter (after all, what do we do all the time in the bar?), banter's no longer funny when it's insulting. What matters is not the intent of the banterer (if that's a word), but the effect of the banter and the reaction to it of the bantee (ditto) - this principle applies in law to both sexual and racial harassment, and I think applies equally here.
Having said that, yes the RAFP thread got out of hand, and it was right that DelMar should delete it, but there are some excellent, constructive and considered debate on this forum, which makes it valuable for a variety of reasons, not least because it allows a section of society, who are necessarily unable to express their views in the normal way, a forum to do just that. My only concern is that although the forum is entitled "Military Pilots", this does not, and should not, preclude other branches and other ranks from expressing their opinions. After all, if the aircrew can be so vitriolic about the RAFP, shouldn't the RAFP have the right to reply? The fact that they do not appear to have done so would indicate that they are reluctant to stoop so low.
I'm in the "engage brain before opening mouth" camp - we've all been guilty at some time or another of putting our foot in it, but don't type what you wouldn't say to someone's face. If you wouldn't abuse your OC Police to his face, then don't do it here, under the courageous guise of anonimity.

kbf1

I can find little in your comments that I disagree with. I would like nothing more than to see less vitriol and a little more reasoned debate on this site. Indeed, it was the relentless attacks on the RAF Police that caused me to contribute in the first place (sorry Sneakybeaky, I was weak).

I strongly believe, however, that any attempt at regulation might cause your forum to lose some of its diversity and appeal. So, even as an occasional target herein, I say, keep it as it is, warts and all.

You will never prevent people's pride occasionally clouding their judgement and argument. But, ultimately, they will show themselves up for what they are.

Thought for the day: Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.



[This message has been edited by Broadsword*** (edited 23 February 2001).]

Some very long-winded an wordy replies which totally ignore the fact of the first posting suggesting "self-moderation".What was that old adage about "burn before reading?"

Samuel,

Is discussion forum. Allowed to use > 2 sentences if want.

Agree with everything said here so far. Have tryed to suggest such, a few times, with little success.

Although I do enjoy LOTS of banter, there are threads that readily support it and those that don't!!!!

From a light blue to a Darker blue - Beagle, You are right in your original post!!

Yours

Murph x x x

I do detect Edwin, an ever so slight tendency to cynicism there, but nevertheless will allow the benefit of the doubt and presume it banter. Perhaps I was overawed by the lack of whinging and took my eye off the ball. The point I was making, was that the majority of the posts have already accepted the point, which was/is that moderation is only necessary when applied spontaneously by the writer. I guess some people just accept that and move on.Personally, I suffered the same disillusionment felt by others at the abysmal standard set in other threads. This one is a pleasure to read! Now it's a very warm evening, and if you'll excuse me I'll continue to the bottom of an excellent pinot noir.The venison's not bad either!

Thirteen-Twelve,

I am compelled to respond, not because of your insult because I have no regard for your opinion of me, but to point out the alarming inconsistency of your post. You accuse me of being a sycophant (though not as eloquently) and yet your own observation 'anyone who is switched on will realise that it is career suicide to criticise in the armed forces' casts you as a 'Yes-man' - one that is two-faced judging by your subsequent advice to 'either put up or shut up and thus the whole crooked and crap system is perpetuated'.

I think that you have made my point about moral courage very emphatically - thankyou.

Is criticism career suicide? My experience is that most professionals welcome constructive criticism - a direct extension of the aircrew open and honest sortie debrief ethos. Are you an aviator/professional? Perhaps I am just fortunate within my force.

Is 'the system' immovable? It seems obvious to me that the Armed Forces of today are incredibly different from the services of only 10 years ago. It does not change overnight and no one person can alter course by more than a few degrees but change for the better can be secured if individuals have the morale courage to speak up constructively.

Thirteen-Twelve, you have cast yourself as the very epitome of all that I despise in a leader; you have no desire but to further yourself within a system that you dislike and openly damn but are not prepared to take a stand against. If the pen picture is inaccurate then please accept my apologies and be more careful how you express yourself. If it is accurate then, for the sake of your Service, I hope that your own superior is astute enough to see through the charade.

Returning to the thread, it does seem that the vast majority of respondents agree with the notion the we should collectively seek to exercise self-moderation. BEagle, you still have my support.

Having been an avid reader for a while now, but until now not posted it seems a couple of points are clear.
A bit of banter fine, you don't need to be abusive to get your point across.
Even the services are self moderating. Those who really don't like their conditions of service/employment will generally leave. Those who like it will stay.
There's very little dead wood left these days - even in the crabs.
Whoops - there we go again.

Simple, if you don't want to be dragged into a slanging match, don't post. If you don't like whats being said, don't read. Sucking eggs?

Helmut,

Simple Eh!!

Day one, week one!!

Pocket today, ammo pouch tomorrow, Submarine hatch the day after!!!

Etc, Etc!!!

Yours

Murph x x x http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

Murphy, too true, too true. How was your excursion across the pond? Any dosh left? Did you go to that pseudo twin engine, wishy washy's partee? I would have gone but had a headache that would have killed a Gazelle pilot twice over, send my regards to his chick.

Sorry to digress; A thread referring to the Dead sparrows and 32 Sqn has appeared with the sole intent to wind blokes up. A classic example, I feel, to the grown up types to remember that you don't need a forum moderator. You just need to remember not to get embroiled in childish mud slinging if you don't want to. Personal moderation on a so-called mil/public forum will do I think. (Although I admit, flaming a non-entity whilst three sheets gone is a perfectly acceptable sport, late evening/early morning). ;)

The value in remaining anon on this BBS is the freedom to criticise without suffering for it. To sacrifice this by freely giving it to your boss is blatent crawling.

In my time in the mob I said what I thought to who I wanted to and paid the price. I stood up for what I believed in, never kissed arse and voted with my feet.

Since leaving I stand by the same values and in an open environment that accepts that it might not always be correct I have thrived. The RAF at least in my experience is a victim of its own cronyism which you seem to want to perpetuate.

And I can add that as leader I am very effective and while there are many who might not like me, sometimes within my own teams, they respect me with a healthy regard or disregard and listen to what I have to say.

13/12

I would very much like to shake your hand and give you a massive pat on the back. You're my kind of guy.