Cool bollocking............

#41
To spell it out for you it shows a profound lack of judgement of what is right or wrong and a lack of understanding of one’s impact on others. I’ll say it again, if you have such an overriding desire to prove yourself regardless of the consequences for others it makes you dangerous. It’s based on ego driven arrogance and such people inevitably hit a brick wall in life.
You're talking shit.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#42
To spell it out for you it shows a profound lack of judgement of what is right or wrong and a lack of understanding of one’s impact on others. I’ll say it again, if you have such an overriding desire to prove yourself regardless of the consequences for others it makes you dangerous. It’s based on ego driven arrogance and such people inevitably hit a brick wall in life.
Absolutely 100% right there, I always thought that about Jimmy. Now, where's that cuppa?
 
#43
Nor do I. However to roll out the same tired excuse

"You can't train young men to kill with confidence and aggression, and expect them to behave like ageing accountants"

just ticks me off. It doesn't excuse piss poor attitude. We all blow off steam especially after ops but it is no reason for what I see as DD's condoning the type of behaviour reported in the OP. The very small minority are the ones who, if not kept a grip on, ruin it for the rest of us.
Ruin what, exactly? The peaceful and all-encompassing utopia that you believe the Army should be?

The Army is, primarily, an organisation that systematically trains young men to murder other young men in violent ways. Extreme respect and extreme disrespect are part of the required mentality.

I'm not saying blokes who've broken the rules should go unpunished. I'm saying you need to accept that the Army is a very different organisation from most, and weigh any action you take against the potential detriment to combat effectiveness.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#44
Ruin what, exactly? The peaceful and all-encompassing utopia that you believe the Army should be?

The Army is, primarily, an organisation that systematically trains young men to murder other young men in violent ways. Extreme respect and extreme disrespect are part of the required mentality.

I'm not saying blokes who've broken the rules should go unpunished. I'm saying you need to accept that the Army is a very different organisation from most, and weigh any action you take against the potential detriment to combat effectiveness.
I know what you're trying to say and I agree with the sentiment but I don't agree that I've ever gone anywhere with the intention of murdering anyone. Killing, yes if necessary, but there is a difference, and the British Army, for all its faults, makes damn sure that we know what it is.
 
#45
Ruin what, exactly? The peaceful and all-encompassing utopia that you believe the Army should be?

The Army is, primarily, an organisation that systematically trains young men to murder other young men in violent ways. Extreme respect and extreme disrespect are part of the required mentality.

I'm not saying blokes who've broken the rules should go unpunished. I'm saying you need to accept that the Army is a very different organisation from most, and weigh any action you take against the potential detriment to combat effectiveness.
Agree with the above. However, everyone irrespective of whether they are civilian or military or both, still maintain a notion of what is right and what is wrong. All surviving soldiers eventually become civilians again. As F_F was saying above, soldiers follow as set of rules just like civilians do, there are ROE, conduct and law to follow, just like anywhere else.
 
#46
Ruin what, exactly? The peaceful and all-encompassing utopia that you believe the Army should be?

The Army is, primarily, an organisation that systematically trains young men to murder other young men in violent ways. Extreme respect and extreme disrespect are part of the required mentality.

I'm not saying blokes who've broken the rules should go unpunished. I'm saying you need to accept that the Army is a very different organisation from most, and weigh any action you take against the potential detriment to combat effectiveness.
An Army is also held together by discipline and whilst squaddie banter is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged in the right place, publicly humiliating your fellow-soldiers is not conducive to good discipline. The aircrew used to have a saying: "Never upset a WRAF as she might be the one who packs your 'chute". In other words it's counter-productive to alienate those you may have to later rely on for your life. Putting something on You Tube or in the public domain is not a bit of piss taking amongst friends or colleagues it's public humiliation and people who do it are letting the side down. There's plenty of female medics picked up gallantry awards so they, at least, aren't letting their side down. You may go to war and you may have to kill but you don't have to lose your self-respect.
 
#47
Well OK, but what did they actually do? Was it just Naafi-type stuff which got sent to places it shouldn't, and he is being prudish and PC, or was it really nasty and worth the bollocking?
Some of the stuff on Arrse would probably horrify him on that evidence.
Some of the stuff on ARRSE horrifys me ...
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#48
#49
Ruin what, exactly? The peaceful and all-encompassing utopia that you believe the Army should be?
Ruin the perception of others.

It doesn't take many twits to spoil life for the rest. I can remember plenty of places which were out of bounds due to off duty behaviour, for example.

Right now our service is running on top of a positive wave of support. However we all know how easily such perceptions can change.

Regardless of if the person is in service or not, I can guarantee every user of a corporate/miliitary network is required to sign or acknowledge the Acceptable Use Policy. This will no doubt tie in with what's going on down under.

Extreme respect and extreme disrespect are part of the required mentality
.

To an extent, yes. However there is a line in the sand for everything. In the case of the OP I think it has been crossed and in the case later posted as a reply I think that behaviour goes way too far.



It's amazing what porn audits can throw up on a network. I've done sufficient to refuse to be involved with them anymore. From any AUP perspective the message from the Australian CA is spot on. The specific details we will have to wait on. On how far these possble offences have gone, well that's still up in the air. I stand by my view that pushing this kind of stuff out into the public domain where it cannot be pulled back is not banter. It's dumb, insulting and very harmful to the people targeted. Until you've seen the fall out first hand perhaps you won't understand.

If, DD, your attitude is normal nowadays then our Army has regressed quite significantly when it comes to the respect of others. Our purpose and training are not an excuse for such behaviour. It has no place anywhere.
 
#50
We say allegedly here when a criminal case is still under investigation. It only ceases to be allegedly when there's a Guilty verdict. To not include that word, or the equivalent, then it can cause a lot of grief for the person making the statement.
I'm 'here' too and I'm aware of the 'allegedly' legal umbrella. It was just a surprise to hear a General issuing a statement to the world containing a similar caveat. Until it is proven, he's dealing in tittle-tattle and should keep his powder dry until he's dealing in fact. This makes him look a bit of a tool in my opinion.
 
#51
I know what you're trying to say and I agree with the sentiment but I don't agree that I've ever gone anywhere with the intention of murdering anyone. Killing, yes if necessary, but there is a difference, and the British Army, for all its faults, makes damn sure that we know what it is.
I've never really seen the difference. If you're in a gang and your boss tells you to kill someone, it's murder. If you're in the Army and your boss tells you to kill someone, it's not. Point being, the mindset is very different from that of an office job.

Agree with the above. However, everyone irrespective of whether they are civilian or military or both, still maintain a notion of what is right and what is wrong. All surviving soldiers eventually become civilians again. As F_F was saying above, soldiers follow as set of rules just like civilians do, there are ROE, conduct and law to follow, just like anywhere else.
Which is exactly why they should be punished for straying outside the rules. If anything, discipline is more important in the military than elsewhere.

My point is that moral righteousness is an area you have to be very careful with. The 'zero tolerance' approach that the pouty Aussie appears to promote has its logical conclusion in the sort of political correctness that leaves people afraid to do their jobs for fear of offending someone.

The (British, but I'm assuming Aussie) Army expects young men to kill, and relies on a robust sense of humour to get them through it. In creating an atmosphere of sensitivity where people are encouraged to feel offended and snitch on each other when it occurs, you run the risk of undermining the spirit that makes the machine work.
 
#53
I'm 'here' too and I'm aware of the 'allegedly' legal umbrella. It was just a surprise to hear a General issuing a statement to the world containing a similar caveat. Until it is proven, he's dealing in tittle-tattle and should keep his powder dry until he's dealing in fact. This makes him look a bit of a tool in my opinion.
I agree, I would think that a British General would not do the same thing but rather hold a press conference and calm the media hyperbole down. As yet these "offences" remain unproven it seems.

That the "alleged" participants are worthy of a Darwin award for using Defence IT means is probably beyond doubt, but I don't support a media release that makes a senior General look as scary as Julian Clary.

Hold a press call and tell the media to calm down, investigate 'em, charge 'em , let the full legal course run - if they have breached the rules, then chuck 'em out quietly. The media will be foaming at the mouth about something else tomorrow.

Weak and ill advised.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#54
I've never really seen the difference. If you're in a gang and your boss tells you to kill someone, it's murder. If you're in the Army and your boss tells you to kill someone, it's not. (snip)
If I'm in the Army and my boss tells me to kill someone, that someone had better be a legitimate target as defined by the Law of Armed Conflict or I can tell him to sling his hook and the system will back me up. That's the difference and I wish that some of our left of centre commentators would recognise that.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#55
I agree, I would think that a British General would not do the same thing but rather hold a press conference and calm the media hyperbole down. As yet these "offences" remain unproven it seems.

That the "alleged" participants are worthy of a Darwin award for using Defence IT means is probably beyond doubt, but I don't support a media release that makes a senior General look as scary as Julian Clary.

Hold a press call and tell the media to calm down, investigate 'em, charge 'em , let the full legal course run - if they have breached the rules, then chuck 'em out quietly. The media will be foaming at the mouth about something else tomorrow.

Weak and ill advised.
In my experience, the high command wouldn't give a shit, having already nailed the ladies in question!
 
#56
I’ll respond to your comment although it is gratuitously offensive. This is an important issue and there is a wider audience here than your limited views. Some of the banter here even when rude, is nevertheless very intelligent, sharp, and highly entertaining but yours doesn’t fall in any of those categories. Rest assured this will be the last time I’ll engage with you on this site.

My first reaction when I heard this group had called themselves “Jedi Council” was ‘grow up!’ and that, to me, is the crux of the matter. My take on what happened is they are a bunch of emotionally adolescent men who are terrified of sex because they don’t really understand the inner dynamics of it. That side of it scare them shitless so they try to prove themselves by filming/photographing themselves and then showing off how much of a stud they are.

The problem with emotionally immature people is that they are a burden to everyone around them and they lack judgement. Their lack of judgement permeates all aspects of their lives and not just personal relationships. I’ve seen it happen over and over again with people I know. They are not the sort of people you can rely on and not people I would personally want on my team.

The other question that struck me was don’t these men have mothers, sisters, or even daughters? How would they feel if this had happened to them? Perhaps they couldn’t care less and it doesn’t really matter to them because they have no empathy with others. This is of course far more serious. The inability to empathise or understand the impact or ramification of one’s actions is one of the signs of a sociopath. I’m talking about empathy in the context of normal social relationships and not when facing an enemy gung-ho on killing you!

I don’t know specifically what motivated these men to behave like this. Whether it’s because they’re immature or something more serious it doesn’t matter. They’re not the sort of people I wold want on my team because they are ultimately untrustworthy.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#57
I’ll respond to your comment although it is gratuitously offensive. This is an important issue and there is a wider audience here than your limited views. Some of the banter here even when rude, is nevertheless very intelligent, sharp, and highly entertaining but yours doesn’t fall in any of those categories. Rest assured this will be the last time I’ll engage with you on this site.

My first reaction when I heard this group had called themselves “Jedi Council” was ‘grow up!’ and that, to me, is the crux of the matter. My take on what happened is they are a bunch of emotionally adolescent men who are terrified of sex because they don’t really understand the inner dynamics of it. That side of it scare them shitless so they try to prove themselves by filming/photographing themselves and then showing off how much of a stud they are.

The problem with emotionally immature people is that they are a burden to everyone around them and they lack judgement. Their lack of judgement permeates all aspects of their lives and not just personal relationships. I’ve seen it happen over and over again with people I know. They are not the sort of people you can rely on and not people I would personally want on my team.

The other question that struck me was don’t these men have mothers, sisters, or even daughters? How would they feel if this had happened to them? Perhaps they couldn’t care less and it doesn’t really matter to them because they have no empathy with others. This is of course far more serious. The inability to empathise or understand the impact or ramification of one’s actions is one of the signs of a sociopath. I’m talking about empathy in the context of normal social relationships and not when facing an enemy gung-ho on killing you!

I don’t know specifically what motivated these men to behave like this. Whether it’s because they’re immature or something more serious it doesn’t matter. They’re not the sort of people I wold want on my team because they are ultimately untrustworthy.
Do you still cry on the bus?
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#58
To spell it out for you it shows a profound lack of judgement of what is right or wrong and a lack of understanding of one’s impact on others. I’ll say it again, if you have such an overriding desire to prove yourself regardless of the consequences for others it makes you dangerous. It’s based on ego driven arrogance and such people inevitably hit a brick wall in life.
Quite right Blondebint. Why do you keep coming back? You only get upset, oh one sugar ta.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#60
There is a crafty psychological reason behind this fine tradition of bollocking in the army. No it has nothing to do with making men out of boys, or breaking a person, or such crap. Any guesses anyone?

Edited for clarification: I'm referring to the bucket on head clip not the Aussie general.
Oh dear amateur psychology. You really are broken brained, you soldier mag, reading, cry baby whore.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top