Brassed Off The Press Bites Back

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Priam, Jan 2, 2007.

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. I dont normally care what the guardian prints - but did read this and its kind of rings true, we shouldnt rely on Generals whining to sort this out, ultimately, the voters of this country should/will pass verdict on flawed government policy to restore the 'covenent' between country, govt and the armed forces...

    Wishful thinking perhaps when most people will vote for tax breaks, and glib personalities over issues of substance....

  2. Ditto but average daily circulation estimates vary from 380,000 to just shy of a million, most of whom will probably take it as gospel! :roll:

    Unfortunately I have to agree with you there too :x
  3. With regard to voting, the people didn't vote for tax breaks Tory style last time - mind You they didn't vote Lib Dem in large enough numbers either
  4. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I think the article is fair and the last comment is accurate, as long as you accept that our political masters are allowed to make war using us, if it is in the Nations interest. Personally I agree with that.

    The writer at least acknowledges the fact that so many people were unhappy with the process that Bliar used to deploy us. This to the point of having to give up powers because of his high handediness. He has done more damage to the democratic process with his abuse of process than any General speaking up, IMHO.

    I think the comments so far posted on the article are even more interesting. Only one I saw made comment about the behavior of UK Forces, serving or out, to date. The rest sailed off to attack Bliar and Bush policies.

    I think the readers are still on our side rather than the politicians. Whilst this attitude continues, as long as we don't threaten to revolt and our numbers continue to decrease because of deaths in far a way places, I think this state of sympathy will remain. We should continue to make noise when we can. BAFF to the fore!
  5. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    Make comment on the article rather than yet another Labour newspeak soapbox attempt, FFS
  6. The article was interesting and worth reading. The Guardian feels it has a moral duty to be paranoid about the military on behalf of its latte-sipping readership, and issue such warnings from time to time in case the Army marches on Parliament, overthrowing the complex multi-cultural and PC society that Guardianistas have helped create by "holding their noses and voting Labour"! :wink: :twisted:
  7. At the moment the paper which has most suprised me by its attitude towards the Forces has been the Independant. You'd expect from its political stand-point to be a raving bunch of soldier-hating loons, but it certainly seems to be the opposite from what I've read in it over the past year or so.
  8. Yes but you have to pay for the independent! :wink:

    In the cheap seats,

    I missed the comments page :oops:
    Some well worded replies and mainly anti-policy but pro-Forces!
  9. Who do they mean by 'we'? I suspect that they mean themselves, the slimy creatures inhabiting 'Fleet Street'.

    I am part of the 'we' they should be referring to, that is to say a tax-paying, law-abiding, subject of HM The Queen.

    I applaud all the generals and others who are stating what a massive majority of people feel in this country, and that is: HM Forces have been and continue to be, treated abyssmally by this appalling government.

    I have never bought or read a 'Guarnod' but I am led to believe it is worth far less than the paper it is written on.
  10. I agree with the comments about the Independent. it is provided free at work, really is an impressive newpaper nowadays. Not afraid to campaign and very supportive of the troops.

    Keep up the good work in 2007!
  11. The key phrase in the article is 'wars of choice.' I am sure that history will view our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as undertakings we deliberatey chose to get involved in. Wiser political masters could equally have chosen not to be involved.
  12. I'm not convinced that "the implication was clear" that Admiral Sir Michael Boyce was ready to reject government policy - after all, in the Clauswitzian tradition the Armed Forces are a tool of politicians - but in light of the international community's recent-times pronouncements on war crimes, I'd suggest that it was more a case of an attempt to cover the back of the Armed Forces in case of any such accusations.

    I know that the "just following orders" argument was rejected in a large number of cases following WWII, but in the case of invading another country, my belief is that so long as military action is prosecuted in line with accepted international conventions, if the international community subsequently judges the invasion to be illegal, the politicians who order the military to act should be the only ones open to prosecution for it.
  13. Don't believe everything you're told. The Guardian is as good in its reporting as the other quality daily papers - Daily Telegraph, Independent and Times. They only really differ in their political perspective and their specific strengths and weaknesses (which themselves depend on editorial priorities and the quality of particular journalists at the time). All of them are in a different league from the tabloids, in which group I include the Express and (shudder) The Mail.

    I'm not a regular Guardian reader (although I dip into it every now and again), but it has come out with several pro-Forces stories recently. I think the article covered by this thread is spot-on, and it's good to see the quality press, particularly at the more liberal end of the spectrum, recognising the risk of the current crop of political clowns breaking the military train set. It won't do any harm in the run up to ministers considering the next AFPRB report and Comprehensive Spending Review, either.

  14. ITC - you taking bets on this?