British Apathy ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know that there are some very sound, right-thinking One-Stars and One-Star next stops, who fight hard and cleverly to protect the RAF's corner, and to look after their subordinates. And I'm reliably told that there are some great two-star mates, too. There are obviously a number of Whitehall Warriors, but almost by definition I have nothing to do with them. Generally though, I think the RAF is very well served by much of its upper management echelons. I'm personally dismayed by Tim Jenner's premature departure, however.
The problem is that those appointed to officially deal with the likes of me (eg DCC/DPR) tend to play it very much by the MoD/Civil Service Book, and would have me Persona Non Grata for ever for what I write and say, if they knew who I was.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 01 November 2000).]
The problem is that those appointed to officially deal with the likes of me (eg DCC/DPR) tend to play it very much by the MoD/Civil Service Book, and would have me Persona Non Grata for ever for what I write and say, if they knew who I was.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 01 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jump,
Thanks for your post it has cheered me up on what was a pretty s****y day.
Jacko
Yet again you make sense. I have to say that many senior guys have good intentions its just that sometimes they don't always get told all the facts. This thread on the whole is encouraging in as much as there have been a lot of positve thoughts. If we could only be more proactive in dealing with the public/press and instead of always being on the defensive we may be able to get back to the days when the RAF was seen as great way of life. As has been said before, no kid ever dreamed of being an accountant.
toodle pip
Ed
Thanks for your post it has cheered me up on what was a pretty s****y day.
Jacko
Yet again you make sense. I have to say that many senior guys have good intentions its just that sometimes they don't always get told all the facts. This thread on the whole is encouraging in as much as there have been a lot of positve thoughts. If we could only be more proactive in dealing with the public/press and instead of always being on the defensive we may be able to get back to the days when the RAF was seen as great way of life. As has been said before, no kid ever dreamed of being an accountant.
toodle pip
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko says, on journo's and joe public;
"..and some of them are even pulling in the same direction.."
and
"...that the high calibre, high quality, unrivalled people in the armed forces are being expected to do too much with too little.."
A journo who is pulling in the same direction as the armed forces, and publically expresses such high regard for them, is not actually practicing journalism but is indulging in promoting the armed forces.
There is an almost total lack of quality unbiased factual reporting of the armed forces in general and the RAF in particular,in the UK press. The tabloids indulge in sensationalist and inaccurate nonsense, the broadsheets tend to be more concerned with their particular political bias, and the aviation monthly rags are very narrow minded spotter biased publications that get far too emotionally involved with their subject matter.
Articles tend to make unreasoned assumptions from which all subsequent logic flows on autopilot. As an example,every reduction in the number of front line squadron numbers is seen as an emotional threat to the very existence of the RAF and rendering it incapable of carrying out even the most basic tasks.
What is never seen is an objective look at just what we need military airpower to do for this country in the 21st Century, why is a total of 18 front line fast jet squadrons a concern,is it merely because we used to have 30? Because they are over committed to out of area peace keeping/making/enforcing operations that have more to do with political kudos and posturing than any national purpose or need? If we didn't have these operations to commit them to, would we need any at all? Who are we threatened by now?
Hhmmm......I seem to be wandering way off target and losing lock. I just feel that there is virtually no objective thought provoking coverage of the Royal Air Force ANYWHERE these days
Sorry if I quote you jackonicko, this is not meant as a personal dig, honest!
If the suit fits......................
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
`'A journo who is pulling in the same direction as the armed forces, and publically expresses such high regard for them, is not actually practicing journalism but is indulging in promoting the armed forces."
Well I'll be blowed, there really is no pleasing some people. I criticise where appropriate, and praise where appropriate, and now I'm just a PR-prat. Thanks a £ucking bunch. I thought I was an unbiased but broadly sympathetic 'honest broker'. And I have no party political bias when I'm writing for Dailies/Sundays or for the aviation press, and nor do many of my specialised defence colleagues.
And incidentally, the rags for which you express such contempt are doing more for raising the profile of the forces, and doing more to point out where and when the politicians are pulling the wool than you are doing. And objections to an 18-squadron fast jet force may not be 'purely emotional' - they patently aren't sufficient to fulfill the peacetime requirements laid out in SDR, and if they aren't sufficient for that, they certainly aren't adequate for (god forbid) a real war. And one of those, BTW, could happen far more quickly than we could ever re-equip to meet the threat.
An angry JN!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 03 November 2000).]
Well I'll be blowed, there really is no pleasing some people. I criticise where appropriate, and praise where appropriate, and now I'm just a PR-prat. Thanks a £ucking bunch. I thought I was an unbiased but broadly sympathetic 'honest broker'. And I have no party political bias when I'm writing for Dailies/Sundays or for the aviation press, and nor do many of my specialised defence colleagues.
And incidentally, the rags for which you express such contempt are doing more for raising the profile of the forces, and doing more to point out where and when the politicians are pulling the wool than you are doing. And objections to an 18-squadron fast jet force may not be 'purely emotional' - they patently aren't sufficient to fulfill the peacetime requirements laid out in SDR, and if they aren't sufficient for that, they certainly aren't adequate for (god forbid) a real war. And one of those, BTW, could happen far more quickly than we could ever re-equip to meet the threat.
An angry JN!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 03 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't want pleasing by journos I just want them to be objective and slightly more intellectual than at present.
If you think there is no political bias or slant in pieces written for the broadsheets then you truly do not understand the agenda of, for example, the Daily Torygraph.
The aviation rags do NOT raise the profile of the forces to the general public! They are preaching to a miniscule, already converted minority of the population, to whom the serial number and colour scheme of the aircraft is far more important than it's relevance to the defence needs of the UK in the 21st century.
I am afraid that you have no idea how much I am doing to raise the profile of the RAF as you do not know who I am.
I wasn't objecting to an 18 Squadron fast jet force, I was a part of it when it was significantly larger. The number of Squadrons then was totally irrelevant to total war and is even more so now.
We will never again have to "re-equip to meet the threat." That is an old fashioned concept that was rendered totally obsolete decades ago and is even more irrelevant in the global multi-national, ecologically threatened and resource driven age in to which we are plunging head long.
The nuclear age rendered mass conventional conflict unthinkable between large power blocks and super states. The information age will have a similar effect on all levels and stratas of society on this planet.
Besides, if you are getting all hot under the collar over a force level of 18 Squadrons, consider this; 8 Jag and F3 Squadrons will be replaced by 7 Eurofighter Squadron's. 3 GR7 and 2 SHAR FA2 Squadrons will be replaced by 4 FCBA Squadron's, and does anyone think that the current 7 GR4 Squadrons will be replaced by anything like 7 FOAS Units?
The times they are a changing................
You being "an angry JN" leaves me entirely unmoved, I was talking about journalism per se, not just you.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
[This message has been edited by Suit (edited 03 November 2000).]
If you think there is no political bias or slant in pieces written for the broadsheets then you truly do not understand the agenda of, for example, the Daily Torygraph.
The aviation rags do NOT raise the profile of the forces to the general public! They are preaching to a miniscule, already converted minority of the population, to whom the serial number and colour scheme of the aircraft is far more important than it's relevance to the defence needs of the UK in the 21st century.
I am afraid that you have no idea how much I am doing to raise the profile of the RAF as you do not know who I am.
I wasn't objecting to an 18 Squadron fast jet force, I was a part of it when it was significantly larger. The number of Squadrons then was totally irrelevant to total war and is even more so now.
We will never again have to "re-equip to meet the threat." That is an old fashioned concept that was rendered totally obsolete decades ago and is even more irrelevant in the global multi-national, ecologically threatened and resource driven age in to which we are plunging head long.
The nuclear age rendered mass conventional conflict unthinkable between large power blocks and super states. The information age will have a similar effect on all levels and stratas of society on this planet.
Besides, if you are getting all hot under the collar over a force level of 18 Squadrons, consider this; 8 Jag and F3 Squadrons will be replaced by 7 Eurofighter Squadron's. 3 GR7 and 2 SHAR FA2 Squadrons will be replaced by 4 FCBA Squadron's, and does anyone think that the current 7 GR4 Squadrons will be replaced by anything like 7 FOAS Units?
The times they are a changing................
You being "an angry JN" leaves me entirely unmoved, I was talking about journalism per se, not just you.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
[This message has been edited by Suit (edited 03 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
1) You don't want pleasing by journos, you just want them to be objective? Or perhaps just to agree with you, I begin to wonder?
2) You need to read more carefully, I didn't say that there wasn't political bias in the broadsheets, just that much recent defence coverage has been non-party political, and that mine always is! I'd also like to stick up for the better tabloids, who sometimes surprise me by doing the defence job better than the broadsheets. Not often, admittedly, but regularly enough to make claims of sensationalist nonsense seem like an unnecessarily crude stereotype.
3) You say that "The aviation rags do NOT raise the profile of the forces to the general public! They are preaching to a miniscule, already converted minority of the population, to whom the serial number and colour scheme of the aircraft is far more important than it's relevance to the defence needs of the UK in the 21st century."
Your attitude is a) uninformed b) offensive and c) crudely stereotypical.
They have a useful role in keeping people informed. Where do you think the stories about scrapping EF's internal cannon, the proposed radical fleet option, etc. first appeared? Where were they carried in the greatest depth? Whose journalists fed these and other stories to Fleet St and the BBC? You may, of course, think that the public had no right to know about these matters, and that serving personnel not directly concerned had no need to know, but that's another argument, I guess.
Many aviation magazines are now carrying in-depth pieces on procurement policy, strategy, and the technology and practise of air power, and some count serving aircrew (and Air Rank officers) among their contributors. During the last 12 months there have been thought-provoking articles in them (and in some daily papers) about Kosovo, retention, morale, carriers, JSF, EF, FOAS, FCBA, F3 SEAD, GR4, upgrade policy etc. etc. I write for some of them, and don't write about serial numbers or colour schemes.
The audience of the better aviation magazines includes many of the youngsters who will be in the cockpits in five-ten years time, many professionals working in industry, and even a small but significant service readership. (I know of at least two Air Rank GD (Air) list readers, at least!). And as for the rest, they're not all under-educated spotters. Many are professional people who retain an interest in military aviation despite having chosen other careers, whether in the law, medicine, education or even journalism. I'd rather that they continued to be on-side than be made hostile by arrogance and ill-founded and barely disguised contempt. And it's worth pointing out that the well-informed aviation enthusiast may often argue your case with his non-aviation friends in the pub, in the workplace, or at the dinner party. I suspect your attitude may be based on a lack of recent experience of the aviation press, so I'll ask when's the last time you read any of the aviation magazines, BTW?
4) Your points about force levels are well made, but if history teaches us anything, it is that the world is a fast-changing and unpredictable place. To blithely rule out any conflict at any time in the future is as stupid today as it would have been in the 1920s. Who could have predicted (with any real accuracy or conviction) the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, the Gulf War, the Balkans.
5) Your cracks about there being "no objective thought provoking coverage of the Royal Air Force" diminish the efforts of many friends who do a difficult job well, and who, in my view, do provide exactly that. I'm personally slightly upset by your direct criticism of me for using the phrase "high calibre, high quality, unrivalled people in the armed forces ... being expected to do too much with too little". That's my opinion. Sorry. You're entitled to your opinion as to the merits of existing commitments, (similar sentiments have been expressed by others on previous threads) and you are certainly entitled to express the opinion that there is no threat and that thus we need no armed forces. Equally, however, I am entitled to mine, and to think that such views are short-sighted and blinkered, and that they take no account of the fundamental instability of human history. I happen to agree that any war is extremely unlikely within even the medium term, but I want the insurance policy of adequate armed forces in case I'm wrong, and I want Britain to be capable of mounting a Granby-sized operation again, if necessary. And so do the politicians and many of the voters. And I don't think an 18-squadron force is adequate for that.
I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, Suit, and I may have over-exaggerated my annoyance - but the prospect of the constant carping about hostile journos being joined by carping about over-sympathetic ones caused my sense-of-humour failure protection system to over-load.
PS: You said: "I am afraid that you have no idea how much I am doing to raise the profile of the RAF as you do not know who I am." As a full-time defence journalist, if you were doing anything to appreciably raise the RAF's profile (more than do the aviation magazines, the Air League, RAFHS, APRA, etc.), perhaps you might expect that I would know who you are! Just a thought....., and intended as banter rather than deadly insult. And when I raise my glass this evening, I'll raise it to you, just to show there are no hard feelings, OK?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 03 November 2000).]
2) You need to read more carefully, I didn't say that there wasn't political bias in the broadsheets, just that much recent defence coverage has been non-party political, and that mine always is! I'd also like to stick up for the better tabloids, who sometimes surprise me by doing the defence job better than the broadsheets. Not often, admittedly, but regularly enough to make claims of sensationalist nonsense seem like an unnecessarily crude stereotype.
3) You say that "The aviation rags do NOT raise the profile of the forces to the general public! They are preaching to a miniscule, already converted minority of the population, to whom the serial number and colour scheme of the aircraft is far more important than it's relevance to the defence needs of the UK in the 21st century."
Your attitude is a) uninformed b) offensive and c) crudely stereotypical.
They have a useful role in keeping people informed. Where do you think the stories about scrapping EF's internal cannon, the proposed radical fleet option, etc. first appeared? Where were they carried in the greatest depth? Whose journalists fed these and other stories to Fleet St and the BBC? You may, of course, think that the public had no right to know about these matters, and that serving personnel not directly concerned had no need to know, but that's another argument, I guess.
Many aviation magazines are now carrying in-depth pieces on procurement policy, strategy, and the technology and practise of air power, and some count serving aircrew (and Air Rank officers) among their contributors. During the last 12 months there have been thought-provoking articles in them (and in some daily papers) about Kosovo, retention, morale, carriers, JSF, EF, FOAS, FCBA, F3 SEAD, GR4, upgrade policy etc. etc. I write for some of them, and don't write about serial numbers or colour schemes.
The audience of the better aviation magazines includes many of the youngsters who will be in the cockpits in five-ten years time, many professionals working in industry, and even a small but significant service readership. (I know of at least two Air Rank GD (Air) list readers, at least!). And as for the rest, they're not all under-educated spotters. Many are professional people who retain an interest in military aviation despite having chosen other careers, whether in the law, medicine, education or even journalism. I'd rather that they continued to be on-side than be made hostile by arrogance and ill-founded and barely disguised contempt. And it's worth pointing out that the well-informed aviation enthusiast may often argue your case with his non-aviation friends in the pub, in the workplace, or at the dinner party. I suspect your attitude may be based on a lack of recent experience of the aviation press, so I'll ask when's the last time you read any of the aviation magazines, BTW?
4) Your points about force levels are well made, but if history teaches us anything, it is that the world is a fast-changing and unpredictable place. To blithely rule out any conflict at any time in the future is as stupid today as it would have been in the 1920s. Who could have predicted (with any real accuracy or conviction) the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, the Gulf War, the Balkans.
5) Your cracks about there being "no objective thought provoking coverage of the Royal Air Force" diminish the efforts of many friends who do a difficult job well, and who, in my view, do provide exactly that. I'm personally slightly upset by your direct criticism of me for using the phrase "high calibre, high quality, unrivalled people in the armed forces ... being expected to do too much with too little". That's my opinion. Sorry. You're entitled to your opinion as to the merits of existing commitments, (similar sentiments have been expressed by others on previous threads) and you are certainly entitled to express the opinion that there is no threat and that thus we need no armed forces. Equally, however, I am entitled to mine, and to think that such views are short-sighted and blinkered, and that they take no account of the fundamental instability of human history. I happen to agree that any war is extremely unlikely within even the medium term, but I want the insurance policy of adequate armed forces in case I'm wrong, and I want Britain to be capable of mounting a Granby-sized operation again, if necessary. And so do the politicians and many of the voters. And I don't think an 18-squadron force is adequate for that.
I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, Suit, and I may have over-exaggerated my annoyance - but the prospect of the constant carping about hostile journos being joined by carping about over-sympathetic ones caused my sense-of-humour failure protection system to over-load.
PS: You said: "I am afraid that you have no idea how much I am doing to raise the profile of the RAF as you do not know who I am." As a full-time defence journalist, if you were doing anything to appreciably raise the RAF's profile (more than do the aviation magazines, the Air League, RAFHS, APRA, etc.), perhaps you might expect that I would know who you are! Just a thought....., and intended as banter rather than deadly insult. And when I raise my glass this evening, I'll raise it to you, just to show there are no hard feelings, OK?
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 03 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen PLEASE,
I am slightly worried about the direction this thread has turned.
Suit,
I hope that your comments are due to a bad day at the office or some personal gripe that you have with journos because even I find them strangely stereotypical and can understand how Jacko would be offended by them. I personnally have no interest in who you are but I am intrigued as to the reasons you decided to leave the RAF. Much of your tirade appears to be based on outdated knowledge 'Who are we threatened by now'!!!
As for thought provoking coverage of the RAF, it is difficult to provoke thought in the public at all at the moment due to the low (invisible) profile of the services and any positive coverage given by any area of the media, including 'spotter' magazines as you so condescendingly put, is appreciated.
As has been mentioned many times in several different threads it is unfortunate that many of the stories carried in the media by both the broadsheets and tabloids is factually inaccurate however I feel that the services should be working closer with the media to improve the situation. However it is then vital that the media LISTEN to what is being said and not go off half cocked in an effort to gain political and or public Kudos. Even the most battle hardened Journoi can not deny this happens but we in the services must also realise that the job of a journo is to sell newspapers. I do not feel that the two aims are mutually exclusive.
This thread was not to debate the effectiveness of the British press but to see if there was anything we could do to improve the publics perception of the armed forces. Like it or not the media has a large role to play if we are to do this and uninformed comment from any side can only hinder what is already a very precarious situation.
Does anyone have a cunning plan
Ed
I am slightly worried about the direction this thread has turned.
Suit,
I hope that your comments are due to a bad day at the office or some personal gripe that you have with journos because even I find them strangely stereotypical and can understand how Jacko would be offended by them. I personnally have no interest in who you are but I am intrigued as to the reasons you decided to leave the RAF. Much of your tirade appears to be based on outdated knowledge 'Who are we threatened by now'!!!
As for thought provoking coverage of the RAF, it is difficult to provoke thought in the public at all at the moment due to the low (invisible) profile of the services and any positive coverage given by any area of the media, including 'spotter' magazines as you so condescendingly put, is appreciated.
As has been mentioned many times in several different threads it is unfortunate that many of the stories carried in the media by both the broadsheets and tabloids is factually inaccurate however I feel that the services should be working closer with the media to improve the situation. However it is then vital that the media LISTEN to what is being said and not go off half cocked in an effort to gain political and or public Kudos. Even the most battle hardened Journoi can not deny this happens but we in the services must also realise that the job of a journo is to sell newspapers. I do not feel that the two aims are mutually exclusive.
This thread was not to debate the effectiveness of the British press but to see if there was anything we could do to improve the publics perception of the armed forces. Like it or not the media has a large role to play if we are to do this and uninformed comment from any side can only hinder what is already a very precarious situation.
Does anyone have a cunning plan
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps we should thank Suit, because what he has done is raise a vital point.
If the public's perception of the Forces is to be better informed (or, if you prefer, if 'apathy' is to be countered) then the Forces must exploit its friends and allies, and must help anyone who will help 'spread the word'.
My feelings as to the usefulness of friendly journos is both well-known and self-interested, but I do think that the usefulness of the enthusiasts (non-spotters) and even the spotters themselves is often under-estimated. Just as a political party must keep its grass-roots activists happy, perhaps these people are the RAF's 'activists', as are the youth organisations, old boys, etc.
If the public's perception of the Forces is to be better informed (or, if you prefer, if 'apathy' is to be countered) then the Forces must exploit its friends and allies, and must help anyone who will help 'spread the word'.
My feelings as to the usefulness of friendly journos is both well-known and self-interested, but I do think that the usefulness of the enthusiasts (non-spotters) and even the spotters themselves is often under-estimated. Just as a political party must keep its grass-roots activists happy, perhaps these people are the RAF's 'activists', as are the youth organisations, old boys, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting stuff about US 'schmatzy patriotism'. Maybe they're so extreemly supportive of forces nowadays out of guilt for the 60s excesses?
Remember, America v nearly came apart in that time.
We are 'apathetic', aren't we. I suppose it goes back to WW1 slaughter - people felt betrayed that so much sacrifice achived so little. Those in uniform should remember the 30s - there was an anti-war movement then, too, and patriotism was sneered at. On 3/9/39, however, all that changed, and the country went to the recruiting offices.
I'm sure that would happen again.
PS see you at the bash 1st dec.
Remember, America v nearly came apart in that time.
We are 'apathetic', aren't we. I suppose it goes back to WW1 slaughter - people felt betrayed that so much sacrifice achived so little. Those in uniform should remember the 30s - there was an anti-war movement then, too, and patriotism was sneered at. On 3/9/39, however, all that changed, and the country went to the recruiting offices.
I'm sure that would happen again.
PS see you at the bash 1st dec.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Edmund
Right on, I was aware I was heading off track as I was composing. No, I'd not had a bad day at the office, just been reading some recent monthly aviation magazines and got annoyed at the contents, that should answer one of your questions Jackonicko.
Jackonicko
Thanks for raising your glass to me, I shall return the compliment, I think I know who you are but doubt you would know me, but you may have come across some of the things that I have done...............
On a more general point, my ranting may well have been a little off track but I do get annoyed at how the RAF is portrayed in the media, both general and specialist.
I am afraid that I will never be swayed as to the merits of most enthusiast magazines, they lack ambition and they lack any depth and they are not staffed by journos, they are staffed by enthusiasts. JN may think that I was tarring him with that brush but I wasn't.
The RAF needs decent PR and it needs it dammed quickly. It doesn't need it with the average reader of the likes of AFM and Aircraft Illustrated, it needs it with the sort of people who would never consider even picking up such a magazine. I am really concerned that the RAF is slowly becoming totally isolated from the rest of the nation and is in danger of being considered a total irrelevance. That was my main motivation for writing what I did when I saw this thread.
We have had a sustained period of media coverage concentrating on base closures, Squadron disbandments, drawdown and restructuring. Some people may be excused for thinking that the RAF either has no future or is on it's last legs, that bothers me and I would like to see things change.
overstretch.
My how I laughed, if only you knew..............
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Right on, I was aware I was heading off track as I was composing. No, I'd not had a bad day at the office, just been reading some recent monthly aviation magazines and got annoyed at the contents, that should answer one of your questions Jackonicko.
Jackonicko
Thanks for raising your glass to me, I shall return the compliment, I think I know who you are but doubt you would know me, but you may have come across some of the things that I have done...............
On a more general point, my ranting may well have been a little off track but I do get annoyed at how the RAF is portrayed in the media, both general and specialist.
I am afraid that I will never be swayed as to the merits of most enthusiast magazines, they lack ambition and they lack any depth and they are not staffed by journos, they are staffed by enthusiasts. JN may think that I was tarring him with that brush but I wasn't.
The RAF needs decent PR and it needs it dammed quickly. It doesn't need it with the average reader of the likes of AFM and Aircraft Illustrated, it needs it with the sort of people who would never consider even picking up such a magazine. I am really concerned that the RAF is slowly becoming totally isolated from the rest of the nation and is in danger of being considered a total irrelevance. That was my main motivation for writing what I did when I saw this thread.
We have had a sustained period of media coverage concentrating on base closures, Squadron disbandments, drawdown and restructuring. Some people may be excused for thinking that the RAF either has no future or is on it's last legs, that bothers me and I would like to see things change.
overstretch.
My how I laughed, if only you knew..............
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suit,
Thanks for clarifying the statements. I agree with what you say about the media coverage concebtrating on the negative aspects of the RAF and how that affects public opinion but do you not feel that the only way to get a more constructive view across to the public is to be more open and proactive with both the media and the population ?
Swash,
One thing history teaches us is that we never learn from history !!
I think that we all agree in general about what needs to be done but who has the right ear and would they bother to listen ?
Toodle pip
Ed
Thanks for clarifying the statements. I agree with what you say about the media coverage concebtrating on the negative aspects of the RAF and how that affects public opinion but do you not feel that the only way to get a more constructive view across to the public is to be more open and proactive with both the media and the population ?
Swash,
One thing history teaches us is that we never learn from history !!
I think that we all agree in general about what needs to be done but who has the right ear and would they bother to listen ?
Toodle pip
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before we start having ago at the Americans, it is worth pointing something out. While I do find their patriotism a little over the top at times, they do at leats seem to be proud of their country. My grandfather in law flies the Stars and Stripes over his house, as do many others in the community where he lives. If I wanted to fly the Union Flag I would need (and most likely be turned down for) planning permission. I am accused inderectly by the likes of the Fabian Society of being "Institutionally Racist!", our nation is told to drop the use of the name Great Britian by some tree huggers who think that it excludes minorities, our government tries to prevent christian prayer in state schools for fear of offending other religions, and our teachers (or rather the more left wing) do not want to teach British history before 1960 because they feel it is an irrelevance to know our Viking/Anglo-Saxon/Norman heritage etc. I can see our society being eroded and fragmented as nobody under 40 knows what it is to be British anymore, and those that do are told to be ashamed of it. Defnding what you are told to be ashamed of (as our forces do)is not likely to be seen as a "relevant" vocation any more. It is sadly more publicly acceptable to be a looney-left wing social worker who believes in placing children with gay couples than it is to defend the realm.
One thing we should consider that is a strong and influential factor in American politics is the NCO Association. This organisation has a great deal of political might. They dwarf the British Legion in terms of their opinion swaying ability and a number of Senators and Congressmen are elected only with their support. Because of this the voice of veterans who have served in the armed forces is listened to and acted upon. Unfortunately, we do not have the same opinion swaying powers because there aren't enough of us servicemen to be worth listening to (we wouldn't be able to swing a single seat in Parliament)and we are too fragmented. Look at the Gulf War Veterans Association. Far more people are suffering from Gulf War Syndrome that from CJD, yet the Gov't are willing to pay millions in compensation to the families of 84 victims of CJD and yet they won't pay a penny to the families of the victims of GWS.
Now ask why apathy exists.
One thing we should consider that is a strong and influential factor in American politics is the NCO Association. This organisation has a great deal of political might. They dwarf the British Legion in terms of their opinion swaying ability and a number of Senators and Congressmen are elected only with their support. Because of this the voice of veterans who have served in the armed forces is listened to and acted upon. Unfortunately, we do not have the same opinion swaying powers because there aren't enough of us servicemen to be worth listening to (we wouldn't be able to swing a single seat in Parliament)and we are too fragmented. Look at the Gulf War Veterans Association. Far more people are suffering from Gulf War Syndrome that from CJD, yet the Gov't are willing to pay millions in compensation to the families of 84 victims of CJD and yet they won't pay a penny to the families of the victims of GWS.
Now ask why apathy exists.
Guest
Posts: n/a
KBF
Welcome to the party. You have very succinctly summed up what I think a lot of people have been trying to say. I too think that the US patriotism, all though a little garish at times is truly heartfelt. As a nation we are fragmented and being driven even more so. There is a real desire for national identity among the people of the home nations but don't forget that the US also suffers from this, just ask a Texan about his identiy or someone from New York!!
What I think we sometimes miss is that in our efforts to gain a natinal identity we just end up slagging each other off. If it really is the wish of the Scots to become an independant nation then they should be allowed to do so but the incescant sniping at each other does no good to the counntry as a whole let alone the armed forces. The banter is all well and good but can be very devisive, ask the English who live in the north of Scotland.
We must all over come our narrow mindedness if we are to present a united front and reestablish the services as a good way of life.
I for one am proud to be British. I also think that the British people are among the most tolerant in the world, which could account for our opinion being easily swayed but often ill informed statements.
(god I can go on sometimes)!!
Wibble
Ed
Welcome to the party. You have very succinctly summed up what I think a lot of people have been trying to say. I too think that the US patriotism, all though a little garish at times is truly heartfelt. As a nation we are fragmented and being driven even more so. There is a real desire for national identity among the people of the home nations but don't forget that the US also suffers from this, just ask a Texan about his identiy or someone from New York!!
What I think we sometimes miss is that in our efforts to gain a natinal identity we just end up slagging each other off. If it really is the wish of the Scots to become an independant nation then they should be allowed to do so but the incescant sniping at each other does no good to the counntry as a whole let alone the armed forces. The banter is all well and good but can be very devisive, ask the English who live in the north of Scotland.
We must all over come our narrow mindedness if we are to present a united front and reestablish the services as a good way of life.
I for one am proud to be British. I also think that the British people are among the most tolerant in the world, which could account for our opinion being easily swayed but often ill informed statements.
(god I can go on sometimes)!!
Wibble
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
E-mail me a 'safe address' (wife's cousin's brothers or somesuch, and I'll post you the next bit of 'positive coverage' you'll approve of. Or E-mail me and I'll E-Mail you the draft back.
If we know each other (MA? IG?), Hi and how the devil..., if not, hope you enjoyed your glass as much as I enjoyed mine.
If we know each other (MA? IG?), Hi and how the devil..., if not, hope you enjoyed your glass as much as I enjoyed mine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right! A perfect example of what is currently "getting my goat" appeared in the Sunday Times yesterday. There was one article about the current armed forces. Was it positive, did it encourage the brave and the good to join, did it cement relationships between the military and the populace at large, did it make our forces more relevant to todays society?
DID IT £*** !!!!!!!!
It reported that the forces have been reminded adultery is a disciplinary offence!
For christ sake! How are we going to persuade people to join up or accept the funding of the forces with this kind of nonsense?
It goes on to say that soldiers have been reminded that they cannot afford the individualism and self-obsession of modern civilian life.
Now putting to one side for a moment the truth of such a statement, how the hell are we going to persuade people that it is worth taking the Queens shilling if we constantly make the forces out to be an institution from the dark ages.
As the percieved gulf between the real world and that of the forces continues to widen, the forces are in grave danger of becoming so remote and out of touch with the real world that the best PR and image in the world won't make the population proud of the UK forces.
JN
E-mail on it's way
------------------
If the suit fits.........