Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sky-Monkey, Jan 28, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
At least if they have quoted from ARRSE it's more likely to be accurate than if MoD have anything to do with it.
A couple of days ago I contacted the BBC to complain that a graphic showing the disposition of UK forces incorrectly listed NI as 'non-operational. I pointed out that Op BANNER remains ongoing. I received an email from the BBC stating that they would query it with MoD.
Today it seems to have been 'clarified'; NI is still shown as non-operational, but under the graphic this has been added: "According to MoD, operational deployments are those announced by defence secretary in parliament involving commitment to specific theatre. Non-operational deployments do not involve fighting role."
Further down, in the descriptions of each area: "Some 11,000 British troops are still stationed in Northern Ireland, although their work is among those classed as non-operational."
Interesting, not least because I am currently in NI, and no-one's told us that OP BANNER has ended!
11,000 Brit troops to keep quite a Non Operational Area which is a Polis responsibility and er 3-4,000 for Ganistan.
Back to the thread....Hopefully the responsible media have found in Arrse some sensible debate that cuts to the heart of the matter. For the first time ever, the normal squaddie can get his point across to Joe Public without going through the MOD honesty filter and I bet they hate it.
Funny how they always call it the Army Rumour Service and not Arrse though...
Well said Awol. For once in the annals of time the average british serviceman and women will be able to get through the 'MOD censorship'.
War is dirty and they seem to make light of the exposure that the public get. Maybe if they told the truth and showed the full picture to the public, more folks would see the pressure that the forces have to endure daily.
Come on MOD.......tell the truth. Bye the way I really would love to know the full SP on darkest Deepcutone day
Agreed, though obviously if they quote of context, there's enough reasonable people to put em right, either by the press complaints commision, or by releasing a true representation. Still, the feelings on these topics do no-one any good. If it persists just get mods to cancel threads...
To get back to the thread,ItÂ´s not a great piece of journalism,heÂ´s just trolled around looking for the comments of keyboard knee jerking,ex or serving squaddies,picks the more extreme ones ie threatening to Â´Top`the Minister of Defense;Who would believe that anyway?
HeÂ´s forgetting to mention that Afganistan was a massive training ground for terrorists,both international and native;Who can forget the pictures of people hanging from goalposts,or grannies being shot in the back of the head by the Taliban.
He doesnÂ´t even mention that the German Army,mostly Mountain troops and Paras,have been working successfully there for the last few years,with few casualties and earning great respect from the locals.
The soldiers that feel that this conflict is not worth theirs or their comrades lives should maybe consider why they joined at all;Nobody was pointing a gun at their heads,no compulsary National Service etc.
A solution?Flood the country with the excesses of the EEC,sheep cattle milk all the things that we subsidise to the point of the ridiculous,give the Afghans the chance to produce a real crop that they can eat or sell and not poison their recipients.Nobody wants foreigners in their land for the next 30 years or so,the problem can only be solved by making opium growing uneconomical.Too simple?
Maybe the prat at the BBC will produce an article with the positive news coming from Afghanistan,and not the ranting,whinging of a dissolutioned squaddie.As a former whinging squddie,I didnÂ´t take myself seriously either!
Yank Bashing also doesnÂ´t help Arrse to become a quotable forum,for the scribblers.
Is it really such a good thing for the BBC to be quoting ARRSE and to then extrapolate that to "Soldiers uneasy about Afghan duty"???
Firstly, how many of those quoted are actually serving soldiers? Has the BBC pm'ed them to confirm they are serving? There are a lot of civvies such as myself around here.
Secondly, supposing a soldier is keen for the Afghan deployment - are they actually going to bother posting "woohoo! hope I get to go on tour to Afghanistan! - its going to be an interesting trip". I don't think they will be, the only people motivated to post are the ones concerned about it - and that's not necessarily representative of the 'rank and file'.
Its just lazy journalism...
Agreed. Also your point on those not concerned about deployment is well placed. I have met many people who enjoyed their time on telic, as they were finally getting to do what they'd spent years training for. How many would also not go if given the chance to stay at home? Your battaloin is your family, as a sweeping statement you'd do anything for them and be pretty miffed if they left you at home (although you could always help clean out the stores or something )
Cor blimey, I got quoted by the BBC and they didn't ask where to send the cheque!
Shame they didn't ask first (does that answer the 'did they PM you first' question) as I'd have given them something truely worthwhile to report rather than the throw-away lines they lifted.
The real BBC news item is here Yank your Monkey must have cut and pasted his spurious sh$te onto it
I emailed the BBC about the article (as a BBC reader not as an ARRSEr)...
In response they've altered the wording...
ps - Has no one seen the 'Oxygen Thief - Do Not Respond' avatar? http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=21267/highlight=oxygen+thief+avatar.html
The only problem with articles like this are if the BBC start using 'soldier' as a blanket term, as the media often does; I'm often seeing sailors or airmen being refered to collectively as soldiers, the media doesn't seem to see the need to differentiate. I don't agree with the view or opinions of cadets like myself, or civilians, being quoted as the opinions of "serving soldiers".
eg. one soldier said....
another soldier gave the opinion that...
They seem to be using 'user' or 'member' at the moment but I'm sure if tabloids get hold of quotes they won't care enough to report the source of the opinions correctly.
Concerning AWOL's post re the avg squadies ability to bypass the grownups and get their point straight into the public domain (that is arrse), does this bare well for the future of arrse?
Granted ARRSE is a freely available and public (albeit service personnel oriented) forum, but surely if the grow-ups see it as a big enough threat to the accepted mechanisms of control, will they not apply pressure to have the site resricted or closed down?
Separate names with a comma.