You're in the armed forces, and they want you to do WHAT?
Discussion
mel said:
Part of me actually empathises with him. After all he joined up as a Navy Medic and later (probably) would have volunteered for submarine service. Now this to me means his career choice and job description was to medically help and possibly save life, in a blue suit at sea or in his case under the sea. All of a sudden no doubt because of the massive over stretching and under funding of the armed forces he gets dicked to put on body armour and combats, deploy to a land locked desert and get shot at. Not really what he signed up for is it?
I can empathise because I know several Navy Clearance Divers who joined up as divers and trained in eod and mine clearance work, their job is to obviously dive and to make safe explosives either on board navy ships or below the high water mark. However because they complete a joint service eod course and qualify on the same course as army engineers and loggies they are now finding themselves being deployed to afghan and being positioned in the highest risk of harms way, luckily most of them view life as an adventure and relish the deployment but it's not what they signed up for. Actually I could totally understand if one of them turned round and said "sod that it's not what I joined up for" and would never call one of them a coward for it, it often takes a braver man to make a stand.
The bottom line is that if the armed forces were properly financed, manned, equipped, and trained for what is currently being asked of them we wouldn't have a situation where a sailor with a red cross on his arm is being asked (or told) to dodge bullets in a desert, we'd have enough army medics to meet the commitment and Jack would be perfectly happy in his submarine. It's horses for courses and he should not be blamed, the blame should be on consecutive piss pot governments that have under funded and over stretched the armed forces.
Have you ever served or have any idea about what the military ethos is?I can empathise because I know several Navy Clearance Divers who joined up as divers and trained in eod and mine clearance work, their job is to obviously dive and to make safe explosives either on board navy ships or below the high water mark. However because they complete a joint service eod course and qualify on the same course as army engineers and loggies they are now finding themselves being deployed to afghan and being positioned in the highest risk of harms way, luckily most of them view life as an adventure and relish the deployment but it's not what they signed up for. Actually I could totally understand if one of them turned round and said "sod that it's not what I joined up for" and would never call one of them a coward for it, it often takes a braver man to make a stand.
The bottom line is that if the armed forces were properly financed, manned, equipped, and trained for what is currently being asked of them we wouldn't have a situation where a sailor with a red cross on his arm is being asked (or told) to dodge bullets in a desert, we'd have enough army medics to meet the commitment and Jack would be perfectly happy in his submarine. It's horses for courses and he should not be blamed, the blame should be on consecutive piss pot governments that have under funded and over stretched the armed forces.
mel said:
Part of me actually empathises with him. After all he joined up as a Navy Medic and later (probably) would have volunteered for submarine service. Now this to me means his career choice and job description was to medically help and possibly save life, in a blue suit at sea or in his case under the sea. All of a sudden no doubt because of the massive over stretching and under funding of the armed forces he gets dicked to put on body armour and combats, deploy to a land locked desert and get shot at. Not really what he signed up for.
A fundamental point about joining the navy is you are prepared to live in a big tin can filled to the brim with fuel and explosives in the middle of the ocean. In the event of a conflict someone will be trying to fire missiles at you, or torpedo you. Even if you don't go to war at some point there will be a major incident like a plane crash, flood or fire (and you have nowhere to run!). Warships are not safe places to be at the best of times.As a medic even in a war zone it's unlikely he would be shooting at people, his job would be to save life. He he wasn't prepared to put himself in danger then he should not have joined the forces. When I joined I was specifically asked about those aspects of being in the forces. This was during the Falklands so it's particularly focusing when you are asked that in an interview, having seen a ships being hit by Exocets/1000lb bombs on the news days before.
Given the number of conflicts we've been involved in over the past few decades, I'd be very surprised if it's not a part of the interview now.
Mel,
While I agree with your last sentiment, specifically:
When you join the Armed Forces, whether RAF, Army, RN or RM, you are absolutely appraised of the fact that you are joining a Fighting Service and that, regardless of gender or Trade Group, you will be required to bear arms at some stage of your career.
This is made quite apparent from the Recruitment Process, Trade Selection Process, and Basic Training onwards whatever your Trade. All the way to the end of Basic Training, if you can't 'hack it', if you develop a 'moral objection' then you are free to leave via what is known as 'Voluntary Withdrawal from Training (VW).
After that point you are in for your agreed Engagement.
Every Soldier, Sailor and Airman (or woman) knows this.
The guy is a Malingerer, his actions mean that someone else will have to fulfill the allocated task. I have absolutely no sympathy for a Maggot like that and I rather hope he gets a very hard time in Colchester.
As I said before, he's bloody lucky I wasn't a Member at that Court Martial - had I been I would have recommended a Custodial Sentence of far more than 7 months!
While I agree with your last sentiment, specifically:
mel said:
consecutive piss pot governments that have under funded and over stretched the armed forces.
The rest of what you wrote is, quite frankly, a load of utter Horlicks!When you join the Armed Forces, whether RAF, Army, RN or RM, you are absolutely appraised of the fact that you are joining a Fighting Service and that, regardless of gender or Trade Group, you will be required to bear arms at some stage of your career.
This is made quite apparent from the Recruitment Process, Trade Selection Process, and Basic Training onwards whatever your Trade. All the way to the end of Basic Training, if you can't 'hack it', if you develop a 'moral objection' then you are free to leave via what is known as 'Voluntary Withdrawal from Training (VW).
After that point you are in for your agreed Engagement.
Every Soldier, Sailor and Airman (or woman) knows this.
The guy is a Malingerer, his actions mean that someone else will have to fulfill the allocated task. I have absolutely no sympathy for a Maggot like that and I rather hope he gets a very hard time in Colchester.
As I said before, he's bloody lucky I wasn't a Member at that Court Martial - had I been I would have recommended a Custodial Sentence of far more than 7 months!
bmw535i said:
Have you ever served or have any idea about what the military ethos is?
A fair question and the answer is yes, I first deployed on armilla in the late 80's doing tanker escorts and mine clearance in the gulf during the Iran/Iraq war, then to Israel,Saudi and Kuwait in 91 again on escorts through the suez & red sea then harbour clearance in Kuwait, a stint in the falklands on wreck surveys and eod work, some home port eod work doing sea mines and PIRA ieds and an attachment to customs & excise doing drug intercept work. I then damaged a lung on an operational dive and took a medical discharge. Ironically I also joined up with and have worked with Robbie Bainbridge who was the WO in this case. I have not however ever met the fat medic or know anything about him, my point has purely been that he was being forced into a job role that he was at best not prepared for and at worst would be a liability in, IMO afghan is not the right place for fat scab lifters and had the military been funded and manned to correct levels over the last 20 years he would probably never have been told he was going there, for all we know he may be a first class dispenser of brufin, and very good at treated submariners verucas.
I really can't agree with you on this one mel. He joined the armed forces. If his conscience was such, how could live with picking the verrucas from the feet of the guys who fired the missiles from RN ships at targets in Iraq? How could he live with himself if, god forbid, he was on a boat that was tasked with using the UK's nuclear weapons?
As for sailors who signed up to serve at sea but found themselves serving - and fighting - on land - well it has always happened. Sailors were forever jumping from ship to ship and ship to shore with musket and cutlass in the days of sail.
Remember the gun races at the Royal Tournament? You know as well as I do that they have their roots in matelots pulling guns ashore and into battle at the Siege of Ladysmith during the Boer War.
Ever heard of the 63rd Naval Division? It was made up of surplus sailors (too many blokes, not enough ships) and it fought with distinction on land on the Western Front and at Gallipoli in the First World War.
I could go on. I saw sailors cutting about hundreds of miles from the sea in the first Gulf War and on the Kurdish relief operation and in Iraq in 2007. They weren't gurning about it. In fact, a lot of them seemed pretty happy to not be at sea.
In the face of that honourable tradition, this bloke seems to me to be a coward and a traitor (if not to his country then certainly to his shipmates) and I wouldn't shed a tear if they hanged him from the yard arm.
PS - One of my jobs in the last few years has been training RN divers in EOD, specifically IEDD. I know exactly what they do and don't do. Good lads, all, mind.
As for sailors who signed up to serve at sea but found themselves serving - and fighting - on land - well it has always happened. Sailors were forever jumping from ship to ship and ship to shore with musket and cutlass in the days of sail.
Remember the gun races at the Royal Tournament? You know as well as I do that they have their roots in matelots pulling guns ashore and into battle at the Siege of Ladysmith during the Boer War.
Ever heard of the 63rd Naval Division? It was made up of surplus sailors (too many blokes, not enough ships) and it fought with distinction on land on the Western Front and at Gallipoli in the First World War.
I could go on. I saw sailors cutting about hundreds of miles from the sea in the first Gulf War and on the Kurdish relief operation and in Iraq in 2007. They weren't gurning about it. In fact, a lot of them seemed pretty happy to not be at sea.
In the face of that honourable tradition, this bloke seems to me to be a coward and a traitor (if not to his country then certainly to his shipmates) and I wouldn't shed a tear if they hanged him from the yard arm.
PS - One of my jobs in the last few years has been training RN divers in EOD, specifically IEDD. I know exactly what they do and don't do. Good lads, all, mind.
Edited by BruceV8 on Thursday 7th July 22:19
Tallow said:
I know it's missing the point slightly, and I know that it's already been asked, but how is he so damn tubby? Surely he must be doing the same amount of drill and exercise as everyone else?!
But maybe more pie eating. Or maybe, being a medic, he signed himself off sick. Or maybe, So I hear, certain fluids are high in protein.He's chubby because he's a navy scab lifter, some are very good, lots are chuffing useless, most are at the front of the queue come scran time. Bruce I guess we'll agree to differ I just dont believe in pushing people who may well be good in some roles into jobs that they are most unsuitable for, I guess you like I volunteered to do what you did and revelled in it, it's just a shame that now days there simply aren't enough bodies to make sure the right people are in the rights jobs.
Oh and we'll certainly know some of the same people, the few from your world I still know are a wo2 loggy currently on loan service in Oman (I guess there's only one out there so you'll know who he is) and the rest are mainly engineers.
again good blokes.
Oh and we'll certainly know some of the same people, the few from your world I still know are a wo2 loggy currently on loan service in Oman (I guess there's only one out there so you'll know who he is) and the rest are mainly engineers.
again good blokes.mel said:
A fair question and the answer is yes, I first deployed on armilla in the late 80's doing tanker escorts and mine clearance in the gulf during the Iran/Iraq war, then to Israel,Saudi and Kuwait in 91 again on escorts through the suez & red sea then harbour clearance in Kuwait, a stint in the falklands on wreck surveys and eod work, some home port eod work doing sea mines and PIRA ieds and an attachment to customs & excise doing drug intercept work. I then damaged a lung on an operational dive and took a medical discharge. Ironically I also joined up with and have worked with Robbie Bainbridge who was the WO in this case.
I have not however ever met the fat medic or know anything about him, my point has purely been that he was being forced into a job role that he was at best not prepared for and at worst would be a liability in, IMO afghan is not the right place for fat scab lifters and had the military been funded and manned to correct levels over the last 20 years he would probably never have been told he was going there, for all we know he may be a first class dispenser of brufin, and very good at treated submariners verucas.
Regardless of whether (in your opinion) the military has been funded or manned correctly for 20 years, there is no place for malingerers such as this in the military. How has he been forced into a job role he was not prepared for? Everyone in the military has it made very clear to them that they may have to bear arms in the course of their duty. Any branch of the military is a volunteer organisation and it should be no surprise to someone in that organisation that they may have to actually do a job that they are payed for with tax payers money. I have not however ever met the fat medic or know anything about him, my point has purely been that he was being forced into a job role that he was at best not prepared for and at worst would be a liability in, IMO afghan is not the right place for fat scab lifters and had the military been funded and manned to correct levels over the last 20 years he would probably never have been told he was going there, for all we know he may be a first class dispenser of brufin, and very good at treated submariners verucas.
I was also surprised to read about the amount of soldiers going AWOL in the last few years.
Is part of the problem recruiting the right people in the first place? Perhaps in the past, people like these would be weeded out in the recruitment process, now careers in the military have become so unattractive people are being let in who are simply not suitable and wouldn't have got in 10-20 years ago.
It's the governments fault for a total lack of support of those people they are continually asking too much from. Years ago I would encourage my children to join the forces I'm not sure I would view it as a good career for them now.
Is part of the problem recruiting the right people in the first place? Perhaps in the past, people like these would be weeded out in the recruitment process, now careers in the military have become so unattractive people are being let in who are simply not suitable and wouldn't have got in 10-20 years ago.
It's the governments fault for a total lack of support of those people they are continually asking too much from. Years ago I would encourage my children to join the forces I'm not sure I would view it as a good career for them now.
bmw535i said:
Regardless of whether (in your opinion) the military has been funded or manned correctly for 20 years, there is no place for malingerers such as this in the military. How has he been forced into a job role he was not prepared for? Everyone in the military has it made very clear to them that they may have to bear arms in the course of their duty. Any branch of the military is a volunteer organisation and it should be no surprise to someone in that organisation that they may have to actually do a job that they are payed for with tax payers money.
He was not prepared for the job because he was a Submarine Service Medic, not a Combat Field Medic it doesn't make it clear in the newspaper articles what role exactly he would have been expected to fill in Afgan and there is a distinct difference between handing our Brufin and putting iodine on blisters in Camp Bastion and being a boots on the ground emergency response medic being sent into the middle of fire fights, none of us know what he would have been sent to (and knowing the navy drafting system he probably wouldn't have known either!) My main point is that every serviceman and woman is different and has their own set of skills, personality traits, strengths and weaknesses, and a good military will exploit the best of each of these. I have personally seen men who I regarded as tough and strong unable to complete the submarine escape training, this includes what is effectively a 30m deep tank, you enter a compartment at the bottom wearing an immersion suit, it floods, you exit a hatch and then assend to the surface. It's not physically tough but it can be dangerous and is certainly very difficult for anyone not happy with being in restricted spaces which are flooding, plenty of men have failed the course and never served in submarines due panicing at this stage. But the fat medic obviously managed it as he's wearing a pair of Dolphins and you don't get them unless you've done it.
No one goes to Colchester for failing to complete the SETT, we never used to send Royal Marines ships diver candidates for Court Martial if they were unable to dive in a blacked out mask into an eels nest it is just accepted that diving is not for them and they go back to driving boats, working radios, shooting bad guys or whatever they had specialised in. I've never heard of the army sending anyone to Colchester for hesitating in the balloon at Bicester on their first parachute jump (I don't know if they even still do it that way but they did when I did it) if you didn't jump without hesitation when told to you were off course and back to unit, not Colchester. I've seen Royal Engineers badge collectors turn up for diving course wearing daggers, purple hats, and little bomb badges I've then seen them driving out the gate by lunchtime because they couldn't handle it.
Now none of these people are lesser people because of any of these things, they were all regarded as good servicemen in the jobs they did which is very true, however they did not go on to specific roles because if they had it was a possibility that they would put their mates at risk. Hesitate in the door of a Herc' and hold the rest of the stick up and you'll end up separated by miles of hostile terrain, freak out and hold the rest of the ships company up in a submarine escape compartment and they may well drown, panic underwater because it's dark and you don't like eels and you may well miss the limpet mine on the bottom of the aircraft carrier! So is it really that different to knowing that if push came to shove and you were being shot at in a desert that you would probably curl up into a ball and cry like a baby, you'd be combat ineffective, unable to treat casualties and putting lives at risk, but he may well be a very good fully qualified submariner who has a superb medical knowledge and genuinely could rival a GP in a medical centre role.
Note: all of the above is very much playing Devils Advocate I've spoken to a few friends in Submarine Service who know of fatty and the general feeling is that he wasn't overly good as either a submariner or a medic either so what I've said doesn't really reflect this particular case very well at all and I've shot myself in the foot a bit as it's fealt he was actually a bit of a tw@
but the principal still stands and that is that he was being forced into a totally inappropriate job role that he was ill prepared for trained for and wouldn't have been had man power not been so stretched.Oh and on another note it's not that many years ago that plenty of sailors wouldn't have even known one end of an SA80 to the other, up until the day the IRA blew up the Royal Marines Band at Deal, Naval establishments didn't even have an armed guard on the gate, they had a truncheon in the sentry box and that was it. I can remember the day it happened and over night it was realised what a soft target the navy were, I was one of a handful of weapons trained sailors and next morning found myself stood on a gate with an SMG !!! while others could start to get trained up. We did have care of Polaris/Trident at the time but guns were something alien that pongos and booties dealt with
The Deal bombing was in 1989. Up until that time most army units mounted guard unarmed as well. I was in Colchester at the time. Our camp didn't even have a fence. The first time I did an armed guard was at The Colchester Tattoo in 1988 and that was considered to be a special case for some reason. Afterwards we went back to pick helves. Even when we were armed at first the ammunition was held in the guardroom, then it was in magazines in pouches, not on the weapon. It was only after the Tern Hill bombing, where a para challenged the PIRA team but couldn't get any effective shots off in time because he had to load his rifle and make ready, that loaded weapons were carried as a matter of course. So in that respect the army was in the same boat (see what i did there?) as the navy. But that was all over 20 years ago and everything has changed since then.
The points about diving and such like are moot because they are specialist qualifications. By their very nature, not everyone is suited to doing them. But the use of personal weapons is a fundamental skill of everyone in the armed forces, regardless of trade or specialisation.
I doubt very much he would have been deployed outside Bastion. There are patrol medics and combat medical technicians for that. I strongly suspect he would have been lucky to be 2ic on the mop in the medical centre.
The comscientious objector bit is laughable. There was a place for them in the days of mass conscription but he volunteered to join the Navy and must already have undergone weapons training, apparently without objecting then. If someone feels that their principles can no longer allow them to be part of a war machine, then fine. Leave. Don't go taking the money and the good stuff until someone asks you to do something a little less pleasant.
How could he ever look people like this in the face? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12873091
The points about diving and such like are moot because they are specialist qualifications. By their very nature, not everyone is suited to doing them. But the use of personal weapons is a fundamental skill of everyone in the armed forces, regardless of trade or specialisation.
I doubt very much he would have been deployed outside Bastion. There are patrol medics and combat medical technicians for that. I strongly suspect he would have been lucky to be 2ic on the mop in the medical centre.
The comscientious objector bit is laughable. There was a place for them in the days of mass conscription but he volunteered to join the Navy and must already have undergone weapons training, apparently without objecting then. If someone feels that their principles can no longer allow them to be part of a war machine, then fine. Leave. Don't go taking the money and the good stuff until someone asks you to do something a little less pleasant.
How could he ever look people like this in the face? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12873091
Mel - I can agree with some of what you're saying and I would agree that sometimes the Army/Navy/RAF will employ blokes in roles that they did not join up for. However, this is not a reason to be a conscientious objector. It is in the interest of the service and normally for operational reasons as appears to be the case this time. It also seems clear that this particular serviceman was objecting to carry out weapons training which is the very basic skill that ALL military personnel should have.
We're not talking about a Chef that is suddenly shoved into a tank and told to drive it. As you conceded, your points are not particularly valid in this instance. It's quite evident that this bloke is a coward, has no respect for his fellow servicemen and should be removed from service at the earliest opportunity. The military has no place for people like him.
We're not talking about a Chef that is suddenly shoved into a tank and told to drive it. As you conceded, your points are not particularly valid in this instance. It's quite evident that this bloke is a coward, has no respect for his fellow servicemen and should be removed from service at the earliest opportunity. The military has no place for people like him.
Corsair7 said:
Didnt we used to use conciencious objectors as stretcher barers during the great war? Very dangerous task, many didnt make it back...
Interesting article here talking about objectors joining the bomb squad for similar reasons.http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/mi...
Brave men.
Mr E said:
Corsair7 said:
Didnt we used to use conciencious objectors as stretcher barers during the great war? Very dangerous task, many didnt make it back...
Interesting article here talking about objectors joining the bomb squad for similar reasons.http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/mi...
Brave men.
BruceV8 said:
Completely different kettle of fish. They were conscripted against their will and yet still played their part. Tubby here volunteered right up until the possibility of danger and discomfort appeared.
Understood, I was merely commenting on the use of objectors as stretcher bearers mentioned by another poster.Mr E said:
BruceV8 said:
Completely different kettle of fish. They were conscripted against their will and yet still played their part. Tubby here volunteered right up until the possibility of danger and discomfort appeared.
Understood, I was merely commenting on the use of objectors as stretcher bearers mentioned by another poster.It's fair to differentiate between volunteers and conscripts when it comes to conscientious objection. Despite that, I can still understand why someone might say he joined up to protect the security of his country, not for government adventures in other people's countries. He'd be an idiot to join up if he isn't willing to do anything the government deems legal or accept the consequences, but he could be a principled idiot rather than a coward.
Any sympathy I had for this guy on those grounds went out of the window with this very pointed observation, though:
Any sympathy I had for this guy on those grounds went out of the window with this very pointed observation, though:
Buggles said:
He also joined when he was 18, he's 25 now. So when he signed up, we were in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of interest, how old would he have been when he finished basic training and made his decision, and how long did that bind him for? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff