Always supporting Tony?

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by roseandpose, May 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Would anyone care to comment on why we always present an onside 'yes Tony, all the lads are happy to be here' whenever senior officers are interviewed.

    Media Ops usually issue their lines to take (i.e. acceptable responses when asked questions) which are inevitably and unwaveringly supportive of UK Government policy.

    Are we simply not allowed to disagree with politicans? Can a senior officer go against Tony and say what he really thinks?
  2. I would imagine, R&P, that these are two entirely separate issues.

    Firstly, Generals disagreeing with politicians publicly on policy sets a dangerous precedent in a democracy. So I can see the point there (although it annoys me that they don't seem to grip these politicians enough in private).

    Secondly, generals should be allowed to say something along the lines of "look, we've got no problem with being deployed to [insert sandy third world troublespot] but we do have a problem with crap kit and shoddy ROEs." That's not disagreeing with policy, it's about commenting on implementation which is something entirely different.

    At the end of the day very ambitious people are more often than not the type of people who like to think that they can see the "Big Picture" (especially when the Big Picture is their career advancement). They will validate this to themself by repeatedly saying "I'll agree with this, it's necessary for me to get to the point where I can change things" until they are so thoroughly compromised to get those pips and crowns that they are as big a part of the problem they intended to solve.
  3. R+P

    I thought tony had left the Corps a few years back?

    Are you suggesting that we should continue to support him just because he's in the lodge?
  4. No I don't think he can or should in public. It is disloyalty of the highest order. If they disagree with government policy they should do the decent and lucrative (provided you are senior enough like Maj Gen John Batiste USMC or have a media profile like Col Tim Collins) thing - resign and speak your mind. Otherwise we have to assume they agree with the policies of the government :lol: It's a no win situation for them really - they can appear either gutless or ridiculous to us but I don't think that most of our senior officers are either. They overestimate their ability to change things from within. It is just a manifestation of this government's obsession with image and spin something that our senior officers find difficulty in dealing with because they are generally aPolitical.
  5. When the PM came to visit HQ MND(SE) we were all hidden away in our offices and not even allowed to use the front door of the building for fear that he might actually sight and talk to someone with an opinion! :D
  6. OK, fair enough, but what about the 'moral courage' aspect.

    How can we instill this into the ethos of our Armed Forces, yet not be prepared to use it to disagree with a course of action?
  7. Well, an opinion is what we all have.

    That's the common denominator!

    Then comes our reason for having that opinion and this is where it gets tricky! Our reasons will be different to those of a very senior officer as we do the ground work, lay the foundations and get no credit!

    Tommy doesn't really want to do 5 tours in Iraq/Afghanistan, see his marriage go down the drain and his kids grow up without him! The General, on the other hand, sees that peerage, the OBE or MBE if he is a junior type officer... and behaves accordingly.

    We are pawns and silent ones at that!!!
  8. I remember some years ago a visit to our Regiment at Alexander Barracks in Berlin by the then Defence Minister Fred Mulley. Several of us possessed of strong political opinions were chosen to meet and talk to him. I admit to articulating some very unfavourable views of his Government's policy and later getting a severe 'dressing down' for it.

    I am willing to be corrected but what is the point of having Servicemen who are enfranchised and able to cast a vote in an election if he or she is unable to express his or her views on matters which affect them to a politician who, in visiting a military establishment is engaged in the same activity as one who calls at the door of your home to elicit your vote and obtain your opinion?

    We are told that a soldier is a 'citizen in uniform' subject to the same rights and responsibilities as those who do not wear it and although he might voluntarily accept a military code of conduct which regulates his behaviour, surely it is neither sensible to suggest nor reasonable to require that his views, when sought, should be subsumed beneath those considered to be 'acceptable' and therefore obsequious.
  9. Possibly because those politicians and their parties have assumed the ermine which previously (and rightly, in my opinion) belonged to the Head of State. Ever since Maggie (Gawd bless 'er) articulated the plural ("We are a grandmother") and by a slip of the tongue released a fashion onto PMs and their grisly wives, our loyalties have been demanded from the Governments; the Lawyers and their nasty Gangs, and not Family, County, Country, King and People.
  10. Never did work out why we were kept from speaking our minds to politicians.Francis Pym visited our lot in the Bone in Belfast, myself and a few others were told to go and sit with him whilst eating lunch (corned beef and chips) and a big mug of tea.He proceeded to ask us what we thought of the place we were staying in and one of the lads said to him,it was shite,would you live in a place like this? The RSM and Co just laughed and walked away only to return when the visitor had gone and started to question us about the remark,and the lad who had said the remark,well sur wid you live in a shit-hole like this fur four months wi oot scratching.
  11. I'm sure I swore allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and sucessors. Not a bunch of sponging, good for nothing to$$ers, who seem to think they are in power by divine right. Fcuk your smart suits and winning smiles. You dont fool me, you bunch of cnuts. Next thing you will be inviting the bloody French to dinner!

    Bloody politicians! They should do 6 Months compulsory service in a line Regiment, preferrably in the sandpit. TW@TS!

  12. Couldn't agree more old boy. Let's see any bu@@er who wishes to represent the people do some service for their country!

    Much rockin would then ensue...

    :headbang: :headbang: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  13. I remember that during the Drawdown of the 1990's while we were based at Somme Barracks Catterick, just after it was refurbished that the Regiment received numerous visits from Warminster and MOD 'Brass' to sell the idea of drawdown and redundancy to the Warrant Officers and Sergeant's Mess.

    It is, at least in my view, that if you are going to sell anything at all to a unit - you have to succeed in selling it to the Sergeant's Mess!

    We were told that we would be 'smaller but better equipped' - anyone reading this thread remember that line?

    We were told that we were a 'poor country' and could not afford to sustain large armed forces.

    We were lied to, not by the politicians but from our own senior members of the Armed Forces who knew dammed well that not only would we get smaller but there was no way we would be better equipped and far from being a 'poor country', were a member of the G8 amd and the world's fourth most richest country.

    Our own commanders lied through their teeth to sell a government line they had swallowed because, in my view, they gave the 'right response' to ministers in the face of a demonstrable fiction.

    Little wonder the MOD is 'over officered'
  14. Unfortunately, for us, you also swore an oath to her ministers. Such as that tw@t Blair. Ho hum
  15. Post deleted due to incompetence at editing