Dicriminated against for wearin their uniform?

[Gromit]

[i]Members of the Armed Forces are suffering abuse and discrimination on Britain’s streets just for wearing their uniforms

Six per cent have been attacked in the street, while 21 per cent have reported strangers coming up to them and shouting abuse.

In one case, a member of the Royal Navy was told by his son’s head teacher to stop wearing his uniform on the school run because it “upset the parents”.[i]

http://www.telegraph....el-unappreciated.html

What do you make of that?

[murraymints]

my fil was at el alemein and torbruk..he told me that noone even gave salute because it let people know who were senior officers ..thereby more valuable....

[anotheoldgit]

It is a sign of the times that we have sick individuals in this country that will not only attack the armed forces, but also Fire Service personnel and Ambulance crews.

That is if they have their mates with them of course and their victim happens to be on his own, but would they attempt to abuse a Para for instance on a one to one basis?

I think not.

[anotheoldgit]

/// I have no time for the Armed Forces either. They will always get a piece of my mind. ///

I wonder if persons such as grffindoor2011 would take the same attitude, if they were cowing in a corner with their family, waiting to be defended and rescued by the armed forces they so obviously detest?

That is why I am a firm believer that if they were to bring back National Service it would alter the attitude of many, and also instil in us all a sense of belonging and national pride.

[EcclesCake]

China, not all military personnel live where they work, there are many establishments that have no accommodation at all, eg Abbey Wood in Bristol.

The ban on wearing uniform in public was lifted sometime ago but some establishments have been known to advise their personnel to not wear uniform in public due to abuse from local residents

[China Doll]

Thank you Eccles, that's what I was wondering about.

[jno]

the thing is, aog, it's hard to argue that our armed services defend us. The only people who've attacked us in recent years have been internal, and the army hasn't been able to defend us against them - and it's not their job, it's for the security services and police.

The job of the military is to go abroad and kill people. If you don't think much of this as a job, you're as entitled to dislike them as you are to dislike bankers or MPs.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// The job of the military is to go abroad and kill people. ///

Excuse me for saying this but what a rather silly over generalisation statement to make.

All countries possess armed forces not only to defend one's country but they are also used on numerous of other occasions, ie internal security, providing aid during national disasters, and stepping in to replace essential service personnel during strikes etc.

You also stated that our armed forces don't internally defend us, well perhaps not at the moment, but who's to say that it won't in the future, we have got to be prepared for all eventualities, too late to muster armed forces at the last moment.

/// The only people who've attacked us in recent years have been internal, and the army hasn't been able to defend us against them - and it's not their job, it's for the security services and police. ///

And are not our armed forces part of our security services, and will the police be able to provide the all security we need this summer, and who will be called upon if there is need to de-fuse an explosive device?

[jno]

it's not really the job of the armed forces to protect us when ambulance drivers go on strike, and I bet nobody ever joined the army in hopes of rushing around Manchester with blue lights flashing and a siren wailing. That's just a bit of multi-tasking that they've been landed with top make it look as if they're earning their keep.

The forces haven't defended Britain against attack since 1940 and before that, what, Napoleon? Their entire purpose is to attack others.

By security services I was thinking of MI5 and MI6; they and the police seem to deal with counterterrorism. If they call on army bomb disposal units, that's fine by me, but it raises the question of whether they shouldn't just have their own disposal people.

[Philtaz]

The job of the military is to go abroad and kill people.
---------------------------------------------
-----


Oh dear.

[jno]

well, care to say what part of that is wrong and why, Philtaz?

[Philtaz]

As you've asked for an explanation to (your) the most ridiculous post I've seen on these boards on a long time, here goes:

I don't recall ever killing anyone whilst serving in BAOR nor whilst serving with the United Nations. To my knowledge I didn't kill anyone whilst serving in Northern Ireland, but who knows in a cross-border firefight? I'd hazard a guess that I didn't.
I can't speak for Nibble, you'd have to ask him.

Just to clarify and oppose your rather 'Join the Army, travel to exotic countries, meet interesting people and kill them'(I'm sure you saw the T shirt around in the late 70's/early 80's) broad spectrum statment, this might provide some of the answers you seek.

http://www.armedforce...d/listings/l0002.html

Blood thirsty, wild-eyed killers of women and children though you percieve HM Forces serving abroad to be, the vast majority of us did/do just about manage to contain our rage and resist the need to slake our thirst with Johnny Foreigner's blood.

[jno]

I didn't accuse anyone of being wild-eyed or bloodthirsty or killers of women and children (though a few appear to be); you just made that up. And I wasn't just talking about the British military. The purpose of any (national) army is to defend a country against attack, and to attack other countries.

Peacekeeping involves readiness to kill people too - unless you're Dutch, in which case it involves looking away while they kill each other - but it's essentially getting involved in other people's wars because you haven't got enough of your own going on.

I'm fine with the defence aspect, though as I said it's almost never used (I should have included the Falklands in my shortlist). But we've gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill people. How these ventures have "promoted British interests, influence and standing abroad" beats me.

I'm well aware that these choices are made by governments, not soldiers; but soldiers are there to kill people at the government's orders. If the government didn't have anyone it wanted you to kill when you were serving, you're in luck.