Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Mar 28, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Labour aid resigns over allegations of abduction
Send this to the Freepost address.....
Not sure what your point is here? You may recall recently that a RE Cpl stalked and murded a young woman recently before commiting suicide. As I understand it the police are linking him to a number of other murders and abductions. If you believe there is some link between this story and the and the sort of people who join/support the Labour party, then what do the actions of this clearly psychopathic sexually perverted soldier say about you and me as a serving soldiers?
No, but it does appear that the press try to blacken the name of the army at every given opportunity.
Whenever anyone who has served for any length of time is accused of a crime they are always described as 'ex-soldier' or 'ex-serviceman.'
Why do the journos use the military link every time ?
Never seen any of these people described as an ex-school pupil, ex-paperboy or anything else they have once been involved in.
Mr PVRd has the right idea, after all it is only in the interests of equality for all that the Labour party be subject to these same 'rules' as we seem to be.
Or perhaps it wouldn't suit the journos' agenda ?
There is a case outstanding against one of Bliar's former aides arising from Operation Ore, the investigation into internet child rape.
Margaret Hodge, as the leader of a local authority, suppressed allegations of child abuse and later, as a minister, tried to smear one of the victims.
A very close friend of the Dear Leader allegedly misjudged the age of one of his "conquests" and somehow escaped prosecution.
A female MP alleges that a minister tried to coerce her into bed at a party conference with promises of career advancement.
Blunkett - serial sex pest. Byers - sex pest who kept his socks on!
Labour - the party of sex pests and deviants! They'll sex up anything!
I'm not a Labour Party Supporter, so my point was not made in defence of any political position. During my military career I have been in units where:
a. A senior male-officer promised career advancement to more junior female officer for sex.
b. A female officers promised career advancement to several female junior ranks for sex.
c. A soldier was arrested and prosecuted for having sex with a minor.
d. An officer was arrested and convicted for downloading internet child pornography.
e. An officer was convicted of manslaughter.
ALL large organisations will have cases of this sort. It's part of "lifeâs rich tapestry". The question is what do you do about them? If someone is taking advantage of their positionâ¦. Kick them out. Cases a. and b. mentioned above resulted in this. If what they have done is âbeyond the paleââ¦.again kick them out. Cases c. and d. resulted in this. Case e. was a matter of professional misjudgement, the individual was not given a custodial sentence but his actions did result in dismissal from the service. Finally consider the case of Pte Lee Clegg â a convicted murderer who served time in prison but who the army took back in upon his release. Were we right to do so? Yes I think we were, because we believe in the Army that people can make mistakes and in our line of work those mistakes can have catastrophic results. I simply apply to any organisation, political or otherwise, the same criteria when making a judgement.
Your point seems to be slag squaddies/army off at every opportunity, why not slope back to U75 where your anti military views will have the soap dodgers drolling.
I wasnt trying to make a point. I never tried to link this to the labour party or any of their associates, Just thought i would let the arrsers know about it. what they do with the info is upto them.
No I believed I joined an Army that is part of British society, which stands up for and believes in the values of British society, fair play, the rule of law, freedom of speech tolerance, defence of the weak and disadvantaged etc. I will admit I often put view forward in these forums simply to put an opposite view (âargumentative personalityâ has appeared on my CR!!) because I think that sometimes there is a lack of debate. At times some of the forums may give the impression that the British Army is the âMilitary Wingâ of the Conservative Party; it isnât and should never appear to be. Our Armed forces are not, should never be or appear to be the instrument of any narrow party political position. And tell me how can my reference to the cases I mentioned before be seen as anti-military? Not to be open about them and discuss them is to undermine the very values the Army stands for. Are you, for example, saying I am wrong to say we should have given the unfortunate Pte Clegg a second chance or we were wrong to throw out a paedophile? I totally agree with Cutaway that the press make too much of criminals who happen to be in, or have previous military service. Equally, political parties all draw their criminal element too and provided the party acts to rid itself of them thats OK by me. All three main political parties have had a mixed record here.
The topic is "Abduction inquiry Labour aide quits" , Not "Abduction inquiry Labour aide quits and lets slag off the army even though there is no real link, but lets make one".
You say "I often put view forward in these forums simply to put an opposite view "...in this topic you haven't put an opposite view re "Abduction inquiry Labour aide quits" you have used it to slag off the army...again.
If I start a topic called "So called funny tw@t Vic Reeves done for piss*d up driving" what are you going to put......" the army is full of pissheads" ?
I thought my point was simple. You canât judge a political party or what it stands for or represents because it occasionally attracts a few crooked wnakers. If you do then it would be equally right to judge the Army in that way because we too attract our fair share of crooks. That is called making a comparison for the sake of argument, and I chose to use the Army as the comparitor organisation because it is the one thing we all have in common on this site. Well, I think itâs not right to judge the Army that way, I for one do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as the few crooks we attract into the service. Nor should it be right to judge the major political parties that way. I stated that all the major parties have been found wanting in the way they have dealt with their crooks at some time or other. However, judged over the long term I would say they, like the Army have usually done the right thing â this is why the UK has been a fairly successful democracy. If you do not agree with a party, attack its policies with rational arguement. My main irritation with the major parties (and particularly the two most likely to form a government) is they are all fighting on pretty much the same ground and not offering us any real choice. In the absence of choice I would prefer to ignore rather than rubbish them. That does not mean I won't vote, it just won't be for any of them. Finally, as servicemen what we say and do does matter. Anyone new to this site and with or no little experience of the military (i.e. about 90% of the population) will, I suspect, be more affected by the words that appear at the bottom of each of your posts. They may say more more about your attitude towards defending democracy than any rant by me....there again they may just be harmless banter. Any proper political discourse requires an effective opposition. Something sadly lacking in our country since 1997 and just as much at the root of our political malaise as the party in power. Lets not have that illness spread to ARRSE!
I still think you manage to bring in, and bash the military however tenuous the link. Your reply contains even more army bashing...anyway "fill yer boots"
I see no reason why not.
The Labour party has seen fit to do this both when they were in opposition and since they've come to power.
Or is this yet another example of 'do as I say, not as I do' ?
You are as always totally spot on....except the second word of your second sentence should read "[insert political party of your choice]" rather than " Labour". Like I say, I'm no friend of New Labour but just because one party are a bunch of lying cnuts doesn't mean I canât see that the others are no better. Once you understand that politicians are in a separate moral paradigm where they cannot possibly begin to tell the truth (and I am genuinely sympathetic for them because most want to be honest, but canât) you can begin to discern the difference between their lip movement, the words that come out of their mouths and what they mean. They are all quite totally different things, and of course, quite separate from âtruthâ which is a uniquely personal thing depending on who is listening and when.
So RiojaDOC, if you don't lead the "PC" brigade, what is it?
The link that started this thread was only NEWS. What about it upset you so much? The fact that it mentions the "abductor" belongs to the Labour Party?
Should that have been left out, just to be fair to everyone else who belongs to the Labour Party?
For someone who apparenty isn't defending a particular Political Party, you aren't doing a convincing job of not doing just that.
Separate names with a comma.