Right then, we can all argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when discussing the degree of BBC bias but one area that really angers me is when the State Broadcaster uses its unique position of influence to recklessly undermine the brave men and women who serve in our British armed forces in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. My colleague Pete Moore over on A Tangled Web has made me aware of the forthcoming Panorama programme which claims that British troops murdered six Iraqi civilians (including a 14 year old boy), that they tortured others and mutilated the bodies of terrorists killed after ambushing Our Boys. According to a senior officer, the accusations amount to “the most serious and provocative made against the British Army in modern times.”
The allegations will be set out in detail at a Press conference tomorrow by the British solicitor Phil Shiner, representing the Iraqis involved and who collaborated with Panorama in the making of this complete propoganda. The programme will then be broadcast despite investigations by the Royal Military Police and International Red Cross both of which declared the allegations to be unfounded. Phil Shiner appears to make a living out of investigating Our Boys and was was made “Human Rights Lawyer of the Year” by the Joint Liberty and Justice Awards in 2004. That tells you all you need to know about this particular character. But what he does is for him and his concience, if he has one.
The BBC, however, will try – yet again – to blacken the reputation of our troops on the back of the contents of our bank accounts and under pain of imprisonment. It will do this knowing that these allegations have been investigated and discredited and it will do this knowing that its own programme will be used throughout the muslim world to rally more terrorist dupes. It’s quite possible that British troops will be attacked – killed maybe – because of the lies the BBC will broadcast on Monday. Why does the BBC have such visceral hatred of our military? Is it because they are revolted at the patriotism and bravery that runs through our armed forces? Might it be that the idea of people actually being prepared to risk their lives in defence of this United Kingdom appals the left wing rabble that made this programme? Throughout the period of the war on terror, the BBC has consistently shown itself prepared to believe the worst of our soldiers. In this regard, it is more dangerous than even the likes of Aal Qu’eda’s broadcaster of choice Al Jazeera – it is the enemy within and shows its true colours with this Panorama programme. Right beeboids, let’s hear you justify the unjustifiable when it comes to this calculated betrayal of the British Army.
“I’ve never been to war, I can only imagine the gut wrenching terror of a bayonet charge. Seeing your friends getting killed and wounded. The noise, confusion, smell, fear, hatred, loyalty. How can anybody condemn somebody for something that happens in the heat of battle.”
Sounds brilliant. If it were me, these Panorama investigations would be true, because I would take the skulls of the vanquished enemy to adorn the tanks with and send back to the tower of London. Plus I would eat their hearts to gain their courage.
Love from the Barbarian Walt.
;
Claim UK troops ‘executed’ Iraqis
British troops executed as many as 20 Iraqi prisoners after a gun battle in May 2004, lawyers claim.
….
Mr Day was previous involved in legal action launched against the MoD over allegations by more than 200 Masai women in Kenya that they were raped by British soldiers in the 1970s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7258374.stm
The BBC loves to use half stories in which to demonise the British army. The BBC cites how Martin Day launched an inquiry in allegations of rape by British squaddies during the 70s in which to present this image that British troops are feral animals who do as they please. Here is something on that so called rape case from the also from the BBC which they don’t bother to mention ;
“A forensic examination of police records in Kenya has concluded that all known reports of alleged rape by British army soldiers are forgeries.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3140592.stm
The BBC, British army executions and half the story.
After receiving a bayonet charge from the British Army and then being worked over by 7.62, 30mm and the main armament of a Challenger II I’m just surprised there was enough of their bodies left to be worth photographing.
I was talking to a friend the other day, he’s a private security contractor who did two previous tours of Iraq with the army. He is seeing a major shift in the situation there. Contacts ( firefights ) are few and far between and there are real signs that the Iraqis are starting to get a grip on things themselves. This is in contrast to his first tour as a squaddie which was ‘like the wild west’
If the BBC spoke to him, it would probably be just to ask him ” how does it feel to be a mercenary ? ”
Any good news from Iraq must be ignored or reported grudgingly with qualifiers explaining why it isn’t actually good news at all.
I think the left’s dislike of our armed forces is based on a number of reasons, namely:
1.Militarism
2.Patriotism
3. Male dominated hierarchy and ‘top down’ command structure
4.Strong sense of tradition
5.Uniforms/discipline
6.Preservation of the feudal class structure – ie, those from the top and the bottom of society working together without the need for a bloated managerial class
7.Loyalty to the Crown rather than the Government.
At least some of these points are likely to annoy all shades of leftist opinion.
Of them, 1-6 would be abhorrent to the metropolitan, chic leftists with their roots in the nonconformist, pacifist tradition; numbers 2, 6 and 7 would probably not appeal to the authoritarian, Stalinist left (who realise tanks are occasionally required to roll into recalcitrant countries); Old Labour types generally are (or were) more supportive of our troops, but even with them, 6 and 7 would probably not be too popular.
HSLD wrote;
“being worked over by 7.62”
The army has used 5.56mm for at least 20 years now as its standard rifle round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO
Pounce, I know, weapons are my job 😉
7.62 is what the Warriors chain gun fires
Those capable of perpetrating this,read it all are quite capable of this ” how did two of them end with their eyes gouged out, how did one have his penis cut off [and] some have torture wounds?”
Eye gouging and penis lopping are a speciality of the region.
HSLD, sorry I stand corrected.
Notice the absence of the usual suspects – Where is John Reith? Where are his BBC groupies?
There are some stories that, while biased, they can answer. In most cases failing to show the BBC operates legally within its charter, but there is some sort of an excuse. Other stories they studiously avoid, knowing that there is not even the vaguest rationale to explain the BBC’s behaviour.
As I Please: Just look at what the limp wristed liberals have done ot the Police and the Fire Service
The Police are now frightened of kids and would rather arrest decent members of the public.
The Fire Service seem to spend more time attending “gay” diversity courses than attending fires.
Warriors have a 30 mm Reardon cannon and a bog standard 7.62mm general purpose machine gun.
Complaints of bias against a programme that hasn’t been made never mind broadcast yet.
Therfore your complaint is that the BBC would make a programme about accusations that British soldiers tortured and murdered Iraqis.
If the BBC cant make such a programme then theres no point in it existing and we are finished as a democracy.
The idea that the BBC dare not make a programme about the subject says everything about your bias, not the BBC’s.
Dear HSLD,
The Warrior troop carriers primary weapon is a 20mm cannon carried on the small turret. The secondary weapon is a 7.62 free mounted GPMG.
Compare the BBC’s zeal in traducing the army with their lack of enthusiasm on big controversial stories abiut Muslims at home.
There have been many suspicions about exactly what gets taught in Muslim schools but it took a whistleblowing teacher to reveal what went on at the Saudi King Fahad School at Acton in East London.
It was a school of hate where Saudi preachers – on benefits – taught kids to disparage unbelievers and jokes were made about 9/11.
To cap it all, the whistleblower saw that Ofsted either turned a blind eye or was wilfully incompetent.
The school is only a few miles from BBC Television Centre. It would have been particularly easy for them to mount investigation there, or any other Muslim school in London.
So where is the year long investigation, where is the undercover researchers, the secret cameras, where is the incriminatory tape recordings, the year long trawl through teachers, pupils and local authority officials.
Nowhere – that’s where. The revelations were made by one brave ex-teacher.
Instead the programme makers have spent a doubtless huge budget acting as the PR-arm of a human rights parasite who is attacking our troops.
And unlike the Scientologists, our soldiers will be prevented from hitting back.
God I hope this turns into a fiasco.
Is the BBC looking for troop movement information again?
Turkish troops enter north Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7258323.stm
“Turkish ground forces have crossed the border into northern Iraq to target Kurdish rebels said to be sheltering there, Ankara has said.
The US, the EU and Turkey consider the PKK to be a “terrorist” organisation.”
Are you in the Turkey-Iraq border area? You can send us your experiences using the form below:
You can send your pictures to yourpics@bbc.co.uk, text them to +44 7725 100 100 or you have a large file you can click here to upload.
Click here to see terms and conditions
Dear HSLD,
Ignore my last, The Warrior AFV is fitted with a RARDON L21A1 30mm cannon and a co-axial 7.62mm GPMG.
I was thinking of the scorpion?
Too long out to remember correctly I think!
Must resist posting…..dragging thread off topic with talk of guns….willpower failing…..aaaargh !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1
There was a bit of a flap about it a few years ago, with claims it fired when it shouldn’t and was prone to jam.
Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) website says that it has successfully challenged a compulsory purchase order in Edge Lane, Liverpool. This, they boast, “strikes a blow to the Government’s Housing Market Renewal (“Pathfinder”) Initiative, which affects 250 million people nationwide.” Brainless exaggeration or inattention to detail – either way it doesn’t instil confidence in PIL’s abilities.
As to the BBC’s online report – I can’t decide which is more reprehensible, the fact that the paragraph refuting the sensationalist headline is buried way down at the bottom of the piece, or the disgraceful photograph carefully chosen to imply a firing squad. Awful, agenda-driven journalism.
@ random 4.53 pm
i agree. it has been a rout here this p.m. no sign of the beeboids. a veritable bloggers bayonet charge.
dare i say that ” they don’t like it up ’em !”
@ joel – the fact that al beeb could even broadcast this non story is a disgrace. there is no credible independent evidence at all of executions or mutilations.
the programme will be “there are allegations but there is no evidence”. this is an utter non story. if there is independent pathology/witness evidence then bring it on but there is none.
The Beeb squad is conspicuously absent – do they get Fridays off, or on the other hand are they actually doing some work for once ?
Joel “Therefore your complaint is that the BBC would make a programme about accusations that British soldiers tortured and murdered Iraqis.
If the BBC can’t make such a programme then theres no point in it existing and we are finished as a democracy.”
Really? You don’t think that overstates it?
The BBC already decide not to run certain reports because of concerns over so-called “community cohesion”; and aren’t the failures of the BBC to report on some issues at an early stage (take allegations against Lee Jasper for example) often excused by the likes of John Reith on the grounds that the Beeb, as a responsible broadcaster, is just being cautious and waiting for all the facts to come in?
Yet here we have a prime time spot for allegations that genuinely do risk provoking a deadly reaction, despite the fact that one investigation has already dismissed them as groundless and another is ongoing.
“The BBC already decide not to run certain reports because of concerns over so-called “community cohesion”
I am not aware of this, can you suggest any examples?
I don’t know what the content of the programme is, neither do you.
If the BBC can’t make such a programme then theres no point in it existing and we are finished as a democracy. – The BBC must be independent, it must be allowed to investigate such accusations, it cannot allow itself to succumb to outside pressure.
And on the subject of irresponsible journalism, here’s Panaroma’s plug for the programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7235426.stm
It leaves it until the eighth paragraph for this fairly crucial bit of information:
“The MoD deny the allegations.”
BBC Throws In Some Anti-Semitism in “Monopoly” Story
http://www.israellycool.com/2008/02/22/bbc-throws-in-some-anti-semitism-in-monopoly-story/
“theres no point in it existing and we are finished as a democracy…”
I’m beginning to agree.
“I am not aware of this, can you suggest any examples?”
Without resorting to google, the BBC often for instance fail to mention the religion of an accused until the verdict of a trial (and even after) on the basis that this would be harmful to community cohesion. No such caution here.
You also seem to have ignored the point that there is an investigation ongoing, and that repeating these allegations is likely to provoke a violent response.
what the beeb should have done was to take the original overblown allegations and given them to them to peter barron at newsnight.
he would no doubt (in our dreams) have done a *policy exchange* style hatchet job on them and voila you have a minor news story which is ” Overblown abuse/execution claims are untrue”.
Oh, and for a comparison, see Newsnight’s approach to the Policy Exchange report. Very cautious, it and decided not to run it (perhaps rightly) on the basis that these were serious charges against Mosques, alleging that they were supplying extremist literature, while the evidence was suspect. This is despite the fact that there was clear proof that some of the Mosques were indeed supplying extremist literature.
Here, however, are even more serious allegations that – at the risk of repeating myself – have been found to be false by one inquiry, while another is ongoing. What exactly is the justification for not waiting until the conclusion of that second inquiry?
Nice to see former squaddies here. We beat communism and we’ll beat Al Beeb as well :+:
😆
Umbongo:
“On the contrary, if the past is any guide to the future, the conclusions of the programme will probably be featured in BBC news broadcasts on the days before and after the transmission (ie the atrocities and the fuss caused by the programme will be “news”) and will probably be a staple of the Today programme for days.”
Right as ever Umbongo – on the ‘Six o’clock news’ as I type ….
Hillhunt?……hello?……John Reith?….Anyone there?…..
If the violent response might be directed at the BBC, the BBC would not report the story. The violent response against the UK armed forces? No problem.
6pm news on Radio 4 described the dead Iraqis as “20 civilians”. Only the BBC could spin it like that. There’s an excellent account of what really happened over at the ARRSE forum (taken, I believe, from Dan Collins’ book In Foreign Fields). Here’s an extract – lengthy but worth reading:
We then started to move into the enemy’s second and third positions. This was where Brian Wood and Dave Falconer won their MCs. They were outnumbered, but they engaged both positions by themselves, with me and ‘Spud’ Tatawaqa • a big, strong Fijian private, one of many lads I felt privileged to serve with • in pursuit. The Iraqis were hidden in little bends in these channels, and they kept jumping out with their rifles and every time Brian and Dave would put them down. Then another bunch of guys would stand up and the same thing would happen. And gradually, we got the upper hand and it all started to quieten down, until there was just sporadic fire.
We’d been in contact for about four hours and it was getting towards dusk now.
We started a withdrawal. Major Coote told us to break clean and start to peel back to Abu Naji. We took our four prisoners back to the Sergeant Major’s Warrior, and then a message came over the net that they wanted the enemy dead brought back, too. The thinking was that they could have been involved in the Redcap murders, and we might be able to identify them, whether from DNA or their faces where possible, back at camp. I think there had been a bit of confusion • I think HQ thought there were only a couple of them. In fact, there were nine just from my position, a couple from another position and about 20 from where Peter Perfect was.
Dave Falconer said. ‘Chris, the bodies need to go in the back of your Warrior.’
This is where it starts to get a bit messy. Me and my team started collecting the dead and loading them into the wagon, as dignified as we could. Still with the odd shot from distance incoming.
It was quite hard, physically. The expression ‘dead weight’ came to me more than once. I wasn’t too keen on picking them up by their hands. I didn’t want to make skin-to-skin contact, I had little cuts and grazes all over me and they were covered in blood and I didn’t want contamination…there’s a lot of hepatitis and other conditions out there. So we’d try to grab their clothes, but some of them were not small, and because their clothing was loose they would just fall out of their clothes… It wasn’t nice work. A couple of them, we had to roll them in ponchos and pick them up that way. They had been hit by my 30mm chain gun and when you get hit by those rounds there’s not a lot left. One poor guy only had half a face, one eye hanging down over his cheek… he’d been clipped with a 30mm. Another was completely shredded. We were picking up body parts.
I’ve heard suggestions that lads laugh about things like this. If I can reassure anyone, no-one laughed or joked about the mess that we made. It was quite horrible, not a laughing matter at all. No-one wanted to kill people, and no-one was happy about it afterwards.
Eventually, we got all the nine dead in the back of my Warrior and returned to base, with my dismounts obviously travelling in other wagons. We pulled up and tried to open the back, but it was jammed. Somehow, one of the corpses inside had shifted and was preventing the doors from opening. It became clear that someone was going to have to go in through the turret and open it from inside. If you think about that for a moment • it’s scorching hot, we’ve got bodies and bits of bodies, which have been in the heat for several hours now. Imagine the smell inside the vehicle. Plus, it’s pitch black, and whoever goes in there is going to be clambering and slipping around over the dead.
Private Taylor, my driver, volunteered for the job. I think he felt he’d not really got involved, being in the Warrior all the time, but that was wrong, he’d done a brilliant job that day. But anyway, in he went. He was in there for longer than anyone would have wanted, and he finally got the door open a bit, not the whole way, and squeezed out. And unsurprisingly he completely freaked out and just ran off into the distance.
We got the door open; it was a hellish, horrible scene in there. We got the bodies out, all covered in blood and matter ourselves, and they were taken away to see about this ID.
DB: wrote;
“Eventually, we got all the nine dead in the back of my Warrior and returned to base, with my dismounts obviously travelling in other wagons. We pulled up and tried to open the back, but it was jammed.”
Here is a picture of mine showing the back of a Warrior.
http://img407.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00822kg3.jpg
Not a lot of room in the back of a track. Which is why our armoured squadrons kept to the 432.
The BBC news makes NO MENTION that the allegations were investigated by the International Red Cross and found to be a load of bollocks.
SO why not BBC? Normally you are the first to mention the Red Cross when it suits you.
pounce | 22.02.08 – 6:54 pm
Wow, that is not a lot of room.
Whatever Panorama’s conclusions, Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers (contradiction in terms, surely?) and the BBC journalists responsible for the loaded online account of this bollocks aren’t fit to breath the same air as the soldiers involved.
i`m american,so forgive me if i don`t understand,but if the bbc is selling a product that everyone has to buy,and our failing to deliver;ie;give balanced and unbiased news,then why can`t they be sued?a couple of class action lawsuits should tie them up in enough ligitation that they think twice in future
The Beeb squad is conspicuously absent – do they get Fridays off, or on the other hand are they actually doing some work for once ?
HSLD | 22.02.08 – 5:41 pm
Chuffer | 22.02.08 – 6:19 pm
It’s my impression that Reith starts drinking early on a Friday afternoon. By now he’ll be in no state for a debate.
James,
if anyone sues Al Beeb its the British Public that has to pay it via the telly tax
Hello
Those pesky Panorama points:
1. It’s not been shown yet.
2. It’s public that these allegations have been made. Why shouldn’t Panorama investigate them?
3. When did this country become a military dictatorship under which all critical thought about the army was verboten?
4. The summary on the Panorama site suggests that they’ve applied journalistic rigour to the task. We’ll know more by Monday night.
5. Can the BBC only investigate issues approved by this self-selected group of right-wing, Islamophobic military fetishists? Or do the rest of us sometimes get to see programmes that interest us?
6. Since when was the legitimate pursuit of people’s human rights through our courts forbidden?
7. Do human rights exist only for people we like, but not for people we don’t?
8. Do soldiers never make errors of judgement? Or commit crimes?
9. Just how enjoyable is this, from HSBC above: After receiving a bayonet charge from the British Army and then being worked over by 7.62, 30mm and the main armament of a Challenger II I’m just surprised there was enough of their bodies left to be worth photographing. Left me in a state of arousal, anyhow….
Biased BBC: Standing to attention. In our underpants
One correctly understands the position that all human rights abuses diminishes Britain as a nation. Human life is sacred and if wrong doing was involved then it is right that the wrong doing is exposed and those responsible brought to justice.
A few rotten apples should not be allowed to tarnish the name of Britains army, and they have done so in the past. It’s time for the army to take action, though it may be best to reserve judgement until the programme is actually broadcast.
The BBC is right to expose it as CNN/Fox etc did with the US army.
Lawyers such as Phil Shiner are unlikely to be poor. How does he get his money and what is the route through which taxpayers money (who else’s) gets into his pocket?
Hillhunt:
If only the Beeb had the guts to emulate those they admire or excuse. Equip White City work experience students up with suicide belts and despatch them to Conservative party wine and cheese functions. Eye-gouge and cut the penises off BNP supporters. Beeboid Warriors could at least stand up and be counted.
Instead it’s superannuated snipping from Chiswick winebars.
Phil Shiner is a worthless arsewipe whose word I wouldn’t take for the time of day. Why give this poisonous toad national airtime unless your heart has a “wish that it is true” even if your head knows it is not?
Allan@Oslo:
Lawyers such as Phil Shiner are unlikely to be poor. How does he get his money and what is the route through which taxpayers money (who else’s) gets into his pocket?
This is how Shiner and his ilk get his hands on our money – paid over as legal aid because of an EU ruling.
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/press/press_release37.asp
Once more – you couldn’t make it up!
“…self-selected group of right-wing, Islamophobic military fetishists?”
Hillhunt | 22.02.08 – 8:17 pm | #
Your view and opinion of the contributors to this blog in the same way many of us see the BBC and the likes of you as “…..left wing liberalist, Islamophile, military hating traitors”.
The BBC. Biased to the core.
Having read most of the above comments I come to a conclusion.
There is on this site a general feeling that the BBC does by its actions encourage terrorism in the UK. It is a viewpoint I also agree with. To me this is an obvious fact.
However none seem to give a reasoned explanation as why this should be the case.
Other then the BBC is a bit liberal stupid very possibly controlled by Muslims and/or dangerously incompetent.
The BBC may be liberal in the accepted sense of the word. However IMO the BBC is not stupid, certainly not run by Muslims and generally not incompetent either.
I believe the BBC is doing this deliberately. The BBC is part of the British establishment and the British establishment badly want if not positively set up this war in the middle east. There is hard historical evidence that the British establishment have done this sort of thing before several times in the past.
What makes you all so certain they did not this time?
The British Empire still exists but not now in name. It is a very big Business centered in the City of London. It holds and invests many forms of capital. Some of which is vast personal fortunes owned by members of the British establishment. For example the entire extended Royal Family including the Queen of England, the Crown Estates countless members of the British aristocracy like the Rothschild’s among many other well known British institutions like our insurance and assurance industries.
War makes easy money and assists criminally minded governments to divert attention from their immoral covert activities. This is a well know tried and tested reality of old and modern life.
It does not take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together to come up with approximately 4.
Especially after 6 years.
If the BBC is not the mouthpiece of the British establishment, then what in the hell is it?
Could it just be possible after many decades of BBC disinformation that what we think the British establishment is all about and what it really is all about, are not the same things at all?
Could it be that it is in reality a corporate Fascist conspiracy against the general will of the British people. That it is not conservative or indeed Conservative and especially not libertarian. It is in reality a Neo-Fascist money making machine in cahoots with Neo-Marxist internationalist ideology.
I ask, what other rational explanation can there be for the BBC’s long held behavior?
Because if you seriously do believe the BBC has been taken over by Muslim terrorists or even just plane Muslims. Then I think you lot will be the ones joining Gazza in the funny farm soon, not me.
I’ve never really thought of myself as a military fetishist. I once put a gas mask on to scare the cat, does that count ?
* No cats were harmed, or even frightened in the above mentioned events. The big one eyed sod just laughed his furry face off at me.
Hillhunt:
Can the BBC only investigate issues approved by this self-selected group of right-wing, Islamophobic military fetishists? Or do the rest of us sometimes get to see programmes that interest us?
Yes, it must be difficult for you finding anything to watch or listen to, what with the BBC’s output being almost exclusively right-wing, Islamophobic and militaristic.
Sod off Hillhunt, the BBC have f*** all better to do than spread allegations, insinuations, and accusations about guys risking their lives on a daily basis.
Excellent link on BBC Panorama exposing John Sweeney as the vacuous berk that he is:
http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/
He more or less sums up the BBCs approach to investigative journalism:
“There are three rules in journalism. First, find a crocodile. Two, poke it in the eye with a stick. Three, stand back and report what happens next.”
Typhoo writes;
“A few rotten apples should not be allowed to tarnish the name of Britains army, and they have done so in the past. It’s time for the army to take action, though it may be best to reserve judgement until the programme is actually broadcast.”
Excuse me. But what bad apples are we talking about. Allegation after allegation made against the British Army have not only been found to be unfounded, but the single incident which has resulted in a charge the army has ensured justice has been done.
This unrelenting mud slinging by the media (read BBC) has left an impression with Joe public that the British army of today is one where anything goes and racist behaviour is the currency of the day. If anything that is as far from the truth.
The army has shown time and time again that it will stamp down hard on any behaviour that doesn’t conform to the highest behaviour. But does the media pay any attention to any of this? Does it bollocks. All it does is move the goalposts into attacking an organisation which spends far more time and effort defending itself from attacks from behind than it does from the front;
Because of the Media the Armed forces cannot have strippers at functions as that is deemed sexist
Because of the Liberals the Armed forces has to be seen having a black face on every rank because if they didn’t they would be deemed racist.
Because of the Liberals the Armed forces have prayers rooms inside Nuclear subs even thou they are no Muslims serving on them
Because of the Liberals all non pork meats on Nuclear subs is Halal. (In case a Muslim should come on board)
Because of the Media everybody thinks my boots are pants. Err look up how every recruit is given 2 pairs of boots, most squaddies get their own buckshee kit and that if a soldier takes only one pair of boots to the gulf then that is his own fault as he should have taken his spare pair. (On that note I not only have 4 pairs of DMS, I own a pair of Danner and a pair of Lowa)
Because of the media everybody presumes every black face in the armed forces to be a victim of racism. Which is strange as in over 28 years of uniformed service I feel safer on barracks than walking down the street.
Yes the armed forces has its share of idiots, we are but a snapshot of society. However where the armed forces is different is that people who wear the uniform of our country have rules which govern everything they do. Rules ladies and gentlemen that define the ethos of comradeship and loyalty to your friends. Plastic people can be found 10 to the penny on the streets of the Uk. These are your fair weathered friends who have no problem crying off with an excuse when you need them the most. You know the same ones who have no problem stabbing you in the back. The ones who cry out they were ‘bullied’ when they can’t hack the pace in the army and then run to the papers in which to try and make a quick buck.
But what really gets up my nose is when wankers with no knowledge of serving try to tell me that the armed forces sets a bad example to the young of today.
Rant over.