h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's my take on this money-for-story thing:

There's something unseemly about an active service military person telling tales, for money or not, particularly during an ongoing operation, and most particularly when there is an acknowledged intelligence aspect to the incident in question.

gOnce they are discharged/retire/resign their commission, particularly if the operation/conflict has ended, and provided that there are no intelligence/national security issues, I've no problem with it.

But how, if at all, does that differ from telling the story to the papers? It's still selling the story, just in a different form.

>>There's something unseemly about an active service military person telling tales<<

Yes anhaga and there's something unseemly about ordinary soldiers being paid a pittance, which they are. And they are also often subject to management by dumbo people who are only officers because they went to officer school, because mummy and daddy are the right sort. I don't know about Canada but here the British class system is still alive and kicking when it comes to the military. And so instead of dying for Queen and country a few ordinary sailors are making a fast buck, from the system they are supposed to die to protect.

I don't find it unseemly for active military service personnel to tell tales. The more the better. If only to highlight exactly what does go on that often gets hushed up. Maybe that way we might end up with a fairer system.

What I'd really like to know is who was responsible for sending them out in the first place, without proper protection.

'>>There's something unseemly about an active service military person telling tales<<

Yes anhaga and there's something unseemly about ordinary soldiers being paid a pittance'

I agree, Fanny.

And I'd like to add one more:

There's something unspeakably unseemly about war.

>>>And they are also often subject to management by dumbo people who are only officers because they went to officer school, because mummy and daddy are the right sort.

Sorry Fanny, but you're talking a load of rubbish...

To get into the Navy as an Officer needn't cost you, or your parents, a single penny (5 GCSEs and a couple of _very_ ropey A levels is the absolute minimum).

You appear to be talking from experience of watching too many bad war films.

"Look at what has been achieved - the RN has suspended all stop & search missions. The UN refused to act to protect personnel operating under UN auspices. The Iranians have 15 filmed confessions to show their own public and a demonstration of apparent statesmanship from Ahmindinejad to reassure the moderates.

Somebody said earlier that the time for consequences would come when the hostages were returned to the UK. That has happily happened. What should the consequences be?"

You've missed my point, I feel. I think there is plenty of scope for changing coalition policy towards Iran in the Persian Gulf since this has happened, including informing Iran that force will be used if any Coalition ships operating in Iraqi waters are approached by Iranian vessels following this event. However, you were advocating the immediate use of force against Iran when the HMS Cornwall was hijacked and I remain utterly convinced that that would have been a stupid, rash decision that would have inflamed a war and severely-damaged coaltion operations in the Gulf since Iran was (presumably) only taking such an action on the assumption that there would be no use of force (single ships not being noted for being keen on starting wars on their own) and that thus she would not be inevitably-drawn into conflict. All that mattered was that the fifteen sailors were returned to us without charge. That is what has happened. If your advice were followed by the Royal Navy we would now be in the middle of a shooting-war with Iran and/or the personelle would now either be POWs or dead.

There seems to be a tendency for two extremes in any situation like this, the silly-pacifists who spin-words in order to endlessly put-off the notion that force might have to be used until they've nothing to show but a pile of dead bodies and the silly-hawks who always advocate immediate-force without the slightest regard for what this will mean in the strategic short or long-term so long as they don't infringe on their preoccuption with not appearing "weak". The former usually leads to what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Rwanda in 1994 whilst the latter leads to such notable triumphs-of-the-will as Japan's defeat in WWII and Israel's recent failure in Lebanon. I've always liked the "talk softly and carry a big stick" idea. Diplomacy always until only force will work and then force that's had some serious thinking put behind it and force whose threatened use has been made clear.

Yeah I probably was a bit hasty and wrong. Though I wasn't alone as the US offered to go in all guns blazing, an offer that was refused by the UK. Apparently diplomats knew within hours that this was going to be resolved, which is why the EU refused to take concrete steps that would have threatened trade deals.

I would be interested to see how a threat to respond with force to any approach to coalition ships pans out. This is probably contrary to international law and certainly illegal in international waters. During the cold war, opposing ships often came within yards of each other.

>>Sorry Fanny, but you're talking a load of rubbish...<<

Okay you maybe right to an extent. But the perception I always get when some top officer appears on TV is that they all have plums stuck in their mouths. I wonder how many bright 'working class' kids get to go to officer school and get to the top in the military. I get the impression that the military is still very hidebound by tradition. Eg You don't get such a fuss made anymore when a female police officer is involved with a dangerous incident. But look at the bile directed at the female sailor, just because she appears to be a bit overweight.

Anyway the main thing I'd like to see is that the whole truth comes out about the way the incident was managed from start to finish by the people in charge on HMS Cornwall, and higher up than that in terms of overall military strategy.

I found this link from the Guardian 1999. So maybe things are starting to change, in the Army at least. The Public schoolboy upper classes are now more keen to make money in the 'city'. apparently I suppose we shouldn't complain too much though, because what with the North Sea oil running out, the financial markets in London are now the principal wealth creating sectors for England.

My bet though is that most of the top bods in the services are still ex 'Public' schoolboys. The preference for them as officers in the services has only just begun to change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,207378,00.html

I doubt very much if the truth about the *u*k up involving HMS Cornwall officers will ever fully come out.

Morning Fanny

You have found the right target for your anger now.

Novo


PS

I presume that the same group of Sea Lords and senior officers who put the RN into the laughing stocks , are involved in the 'storie' decision?

Novo

Bearing in mind his appearnce in the House of Commons this afternoon, any bets on wheter our esteemed Defense Secretary will survive in his post?

I'll wager he does,

He is a solicitor (lawyer), and a Scot, who can get more double negatives into a speech than your average MP.

Novo

I was speaking to a squaddie friend of mine about this and his reaction was that only and idiot would have sanctioned selling the stories. There is a huge problem with esprit de corp as it is in the Gulf just with partially trained reservists being paid more than fully trained full timers they are serving alongside.

I cant believe that people who gave the go ahead werent aware of this so Im imagining that there the rationale must have been getting the stories out would get the MoD and Navy off the hook without it looking like they were doing the spinning as the words were coming straight from the mouths of personnel and not an official briefing.

What I can easily accept is that once again the people in charge of the armed forces have managed to shoot themselves in the foot.

>>I was speaking to a squaddie friend of mine about this<<

Could we have a link for this please blicky?

But what you say makes sense. I have changed my mind about this issue now, having heard Michael Portillo speak about it yesterday. He said the real problem is whenever some future event occurs, the personnel involved will feel worried what will be said about each other in the press afterwards. I feel a bit of an idiot myself for initially agreeing with the idea. But we should start paying all service personnel a decent wage if they are expected to pay the ultimate sacrifice, instead of just relying on stuff like 'Pro patria mori'

Afternoon Novo. Yes I agree that the defence secretary will survive.

Novo

Plus, Bliar's 'retirement' would mean the new defence secretary would only be in the job for a few months before the new PM gets his cronies in place...unless Milliband wins and nothing wil change.

Blicky, Novo, and people against selling the story - do you think it would be OK for them to write & sell a book?

Not whilst they're still serving. If they leave, they can do as they please.

Think of it as a confidentiality clause in a contract. In this case someone, and we may never really know who, gave them express permission to breach their contract. That permission was subsequently rescinded.

Im not against them selling their stories.

If a civillian were kidnapped who would be against them starting a bidding war and can you stop them? Pt Josephine Bloggs is held captive and cant sell her story but her uncle Joe Bloggs who heard it off her mother in law who herad it from her son who heard it from his wife Josephine can. (Obviously it *almost* goes without saying that pertinent secrets that might put others in danger are best kept secret. Though i thought it worth mentioning incase some body pulled me up on it.)

Does that only sound stupid to me?

I suppose its no more stupid than ex-MoD staff who used to give huge contracts to arms firms a few months after retirement getting high paid low effort directi#orships or consultancy jobs with the same big companies they used to direct our tax cash towards, if you ask me.

Obviously it might be a problem for troops on the ground and those commanding them but in the grand scheme of things resenting your commrades for taking money from the tabloids because they were lucky enough to be caught by the enemy Im guessing doesnt count for that much when you compare it to the daily problem of lots of people trying to kill you.

But Im just a youth worker so Im not *that* used to people wanting to kill me, but there are a few stories I could tell you.

one love

Echo that SWL

Sell after you have left the job if you must, but not whilst serving .

Novo

Well at least that's consistent across the board. Say you what you will about it, at least it's an ethos.


"Could we have a link for this please blicky? winkeye"

That's it, I'm out of here. What is with everyone always demanding links? Can't we just for once have a nice, non-factual conversation for once?