blonde poker forum

and if so, who would you suggest is in the wrong here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537103.stm

1) Yes, very.

2) The MOD, who have apparently encouraged this move, are to blame, not the individuals.

One assumes the MOD need to try & placate, via PR means, those who say that it's a sad day when a Royal Navy vessel is captured without a shot being fired.

There stories will come out anyway, via an 'unnamed' friend or family. This way they have an unofficial control of what story is told.

I dont quite see why it is distasteful myself.

do you not think it is insulting to a) the families of those killed on active service in Iraq and  b) those serving in Iraq with no prospect of selling their story for a big lump sum unless they are captured?

and what about the media? is this not another example where a competitive lust for the story overcomes good taste?

a) When the Iraq war started there was a 2-page story in the paper just about everyday about a soldier having been killed in the line of duty and his family giving their perspective and comments, etc.
b)They were captured by the iranians on a matter of territorial intrusion and therefore cannot really be considered to be part of the iraqi conflict.
c)Not a shot was fired and the general public do want to know what occurred in those 2 weeks and if they can get monetary reward for telling their story then why not.

With regards to the media, they wouldnt want the story so bad if people in the general public didnt want to know what happened. They only offer high prices to get more people buying their papers. Surely comes down to the simple concept of supply and demand.

Nope, media manipulation by the MOD.

It's just another managed propaganda exercise, every bit as cynical as anything the Iranians have broadcast.

Wardonkey gets it right, sadly, many others will prove gullible to this MOD-inspired propoganda.

I wouldnt say uim being gullible just that i cant see a downside to what is going on!

That's because your mind is being manipulated!

Surely giving the individuals choice in the matter they are being as fair as possible? Freedom of speech and all that, i'm sure everyone would like to hear some unbiased stories, though this being the case is pretty unlikely, and i'm sure they have a fair idea whether the individuals conscience will stop them selling or not :D.

Nail on head

"unbiased".....? Hardly!

Fair enough MOD media manipulation blah blah blah but what is the downside?
Who is losing out?
Why shouldnt they do it?

:P

the british armed forces are amongst the lowest paid employees in britain they constant have had the lives threatened since the year dot all in aid of letting rich city folk get the best medical care when they sufer stress after pressing a button on a typewriter

its about time they got to earn some decent money and if being allowed to sell there story or write a book as long as they dont give away any secrets or put lives at risk i say fair play to them

though i think most of them will give any money they do earn to chairties that will help those families that have lost loved ones in conflicts

The main debate here is whether the MOD are right in allowing these individuals to give their stories via the media and collect payment for this, something that no serviceman/woman has been entitled to do before. Anyone wishing to gain from stories from their experiences whilst in service has had to leave the service to do this.

I have a couple of points on this.

1. My brother and I were both serving when he was murdered by the IRA in 1993. At the time there were various media stories regarding this (who was responsible, the method etc. You will all no doubt remember the spate of 1 shot "super sniper" stories at that time.) Worst of all was the anonymous stories of so-called friends and comrades of my brother who went to the press with tales of last meals, talks and one even suggesting that he had actually stood in for someone else and should not have been on that patrol. A couple of them even went to the press after being AWOL for a few weeks saying their reason for being absent was the effect that my brothers death had on them as they were mates - he hardly even knew them as they were from a different company!!

My family never responded in respect for my brother and also to myself as I was still serving. Our thoughts on it were, we new the dangers involved when we joined up and that it could have happened at any point. Indeed we had both served in the 1st Gulf war and it was reasonably expected that one or either of us could indeed have not returned.

2. I think it was Red dog who mentioned in Tikay's thread regarding where were you when?

The incident with the 2 Royal Signals guys who inadvertently got caught up in an IRA funeral and were subsequently slaughtered. My unit was on duty in the area that day and shortly after one of our commanders had given a statement to some press guy regarding the fact that we were in close proximity and could see what was happening and had asked his superiors whether we were to intervene. We were told not to and at that time admittedly, no-one realised that it was 2 soldiers that were involved. This commander was subsequently disciplined for this interview and was reduced in rank and fined.

Just a couple of personal reasons why I find this kind of thing distasteful.

My third, and to me, the most disappointing point is that I fear that the Government (I know we all say it's an MOD decision but lets not kid ourselves.) is allowing this as part of a larger campaign to smear the Iranian government. The more harrowing the stories can be made to look the more support the government will get when/if looking to act against Iran.

For me it all started when all 15 got on a plane in Iran wearing suits supplied by the Iranians (albeit ill-fitting) to emerge at the other end wearing full military gear and paraded immediately in front of the cameras.

In the end, we will probably never get the full true story of what happened during these last couple of weeks but i feel that if it were left to "outsiders" to do the commenting it would have less impact on Joe public's thoughts as he would be unsure of the validity of the reports.

By allowing the individuals to give their (or the government's) story is much more likely to get a response from Joe public.

After all, individuals like McNab, Ryan and the airman John Nicolls had to leave the service before they could give the true stories of their heroic deeds.

Geo

A stunningly good Post Sir, which answers every question asked.

I would go on to say that my belief that these Service poeple should not sell their stories to the Media does not imply anything other than the huge respect I have for all our Armed Forces.

Thank you. A breathtakingly direct and well reasoned post.

For the record, it was tikay who brought the Funeral incident up.

Thanks Red & Tikay,

Got a wee bit mixed up on thread creator and poster.

I was actually contemplating placing a thread regards this, however thought that due to my service background it may not have been taken as seriously. Thanks to tighty for starting this.

as a post note,

My eldest son now serves and has served twice in Iraq, my family and I would never dream of getting involved with the media, god forbid, if he was ever involved in anything like this.

Tikay,

Look forward to getting a chance to meet in Edinburgh next weekend.

Geo

Yes, that would be good, let's chat next week.

And thanks to Tighty for starting  this excellent thread, it's a subject I've been mulling over, & one which troubles me greatly.

geo do you really thing that any serviceman/woman would make false statements in the press to "help" the government

none of the men i served with would of none of the ones i knew from when my dad servedwould have

servicemen are like the rest of the population and see the government as a nessesary evil giving us chit pay and

accomidation that is falling apart while ecpecting us to bail them out when ever there policy piss the public off enough to strike

i dont know any junior rank that would lie for a government of either of the parties

also no serving solider wants a war espically when there are already over stretch so i doubt they would emblish storys to try and stir

up hatered of another nation for politcal purposes which could lead to war

i cant speak for the officers as they might have alteria motibes like slippery poles and future careers nut that doesnt really apply

to junior ranks ans SNCOs

I am not sure if it breaches the bounds of good taste, but to me it's just plain wrong. A few thoughts:

- I suspect this was sanctioned by the upper echelons of the Royal Navy, who have had the shortcomings of their rules of engagement, stretched resources for the patrolling task, and lack of training for service personnel in response to capture, exposed in world view for a fortnight. They are laying a smokescreen. Out of it, we may find what compelled the personnel involved to give more than "name, rank, and serial number". Also, we may find out to what extent Iran breached the Geneva convention, although after Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib the world is inured to it. The performances on Iranian TV would have made Lord Haw Haw proud.

- We should not forget that these personnel were doing a dangerous and vital job, patrolling to intercept arms smuggled to Iraq to support insurgents, probably Republican Guard funded. I would like to see President Ahmedinejad supporting their efforts to prevent smuggling across his border, but I am not holding my breath.

- I doubt that the MoD is sufficiently PR savvy to manage this news leak, let alone deal with the further consequences of it in the years to come. I am mindful of this 25 years after John Nott's performance.

- I believe the FCO probably had to pull a lot of diplomatic levers to help bring about the outcome: I wonder what a US response might have been.

- I assume that after Peter Wright et al, the Official Secrets Act has had its teeth pulled, and in this age the storytelling is inevitable.

- My thoughts are with the personnel and their families, and those of all the people still held hostage in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places tonight. I hope we never lose sight of who the real bad guys are, and laze into moral equivalence.

 

Alistair,

I have never at any time stated that they would make up false statements, merely that the government would prefer the more harrowing side of the tale to be told to gain support for their campaign against Iran whether we deem it correct or not.

Having recently finished my time (and remain an honorary member of my units Sgt's Mess) and with a son currently serving, I am more than aware of the thoughts of the front line soldiers towards over commitment and particularly our participation in this Iraq war. the 1st war we can justify as They had invaded Kuwait and the Kuwaiti's requested assistance. This war is about supporting Bush and I, like many serving and ex servicemen have my doubts as to whether we should be there.

Whilst i can agree regards the standard of accommodation, I cannot agree that servicemen/women are amongst the poorest paid in the country, whether the pay they receive is worthy of what we ask of them is a different matter.

I will always support our troops in whatever our government asks them to do, not neccessariy agreeing with the government.

I take great solace from various debates I have seen over the last few years that the public realises that our forces do as they are told and that the forces are still supported by the majority of the public whatever situation they are placed in.

Geo

Good post and very well put.

geo

the public have little or no respect for the forces IMHO
i still remember getting turned away from pubs and clubs of england because i was forces
even though i was out with my sister and her friends who were all locals

the pay in the forces when i was in was pitance and basically slave labour
there is no other job in the world i would have done for that money
i think its an insult

although i never made the first gulf war due to nreaking my back my unit went
and i agree it was fough for the right reason

wether this recent conflict is justified is nothing to do with the soldiers they are there as they are told to be there and they have no say in the matter they cant just down tools because they dont like the orders, the public dont seem to understand that and recently an ex collegue of mine was spat at in a london airport because he was carrying his kitbag

i am all for the boy/girls making a little bit of extra money if murdoch and his cronies are willing to pay for there stories as i said earl;ier most of the money will proberly end up in the coffers of unit charities and i dont think anything they will say will make the public on the side of anymore government esacpades without conctrete evidance of aggression

Great Post by yellowmagic.

but why should the rules be changed in this instance? if they feel they need to make money from their story, left them leave the service as others have had to do. This is the main reason for this thread, the fact that in this case, they have changed the rules. i for one believe it is not for the fact that these people can make a few bob but merely a propoganda exercise.

Are you making it to Edinburgh next weekend? would be good to get a chin wag and talk Army.

Geo

...yes,. & they have changed the rules - on this occasion - for a reason. It's not hard to work out what is going on here, & all this other justification is merely a smokescreen. The Government Spin Machine is an utterly loathesome thing, content to "use" anyone they can.

cant make edinburgh as i am on bed rest at present

the rules being relaxed IMHO is good and i hope it continues

atleast the public can hear from the  people at the front end and not those buracacts in an office in london

with the freedom of info act i think it would be hard to gag a member of the forces now anyway

Ok mate, get well soon. some other time hopefully.

Geo

The media(British press in particular) are so fu**ed up it's unreal.

With one hand they're stuffing the pockets of the soldiers family's with money for their stories and with the other writing about the impropriety surrounding them selling their stories.

I was watching the news yesterday morning and they had a lady vicar on BBC news24 who they'd requisitioned to talk about the teenage boy that was stabbed to death in leytonstone and how that had impacted upon the local community.

The guy asks her this question:" knife crime is becoming more and more prevalent amongst the youth of today and everytime we have one of these tragedies we see a local community leader or social commentater on the t.v expounding upon the broader class issues surrounding these incidents, but it never really does any good does it, the children arnt watching and it's quickly forgotten about so why do you think you coming on the t.v is going to be of any benefit in helping to stop and highlight the growing knife culture of moder day Britain"?

WTF!!!!!!!!!

So basically they've got her up out of bed, done her make up, done all the pre interview work with her to ask her: "what's the point of this interview, they never do any good, haven't you got anything better to do"!!!!

what a fu**in idiot question, stitched her right up

She did'nt really know what to say, i'd of said"what do you want me to say, your the ones that asked me to come and do the interview you mug"

Try to be as uninfluenced as possible by  the emotive reporting methods of the British media, most of whom have there own political agendas.

The incontrovertible facts will be widely available about a story of significant public interst if you look hard enough, this situation is an exasperating paradigm of how the media has far too much power and influence over the way in which the British public receives it's news.

For my two cents worth its only wrong because this is an exception, not the rule.
 
We live in a society dominated by wealth and to allow these to sell their story and not allow other servicemen to reap the rewards is wrong. As for the ppl that say the story is going to come out through freinds and family anyhow, let them. You cant allow a one off especially for those that work so hard in circumstances most of us couldnt dream of.

Definite MOD propaganda and utterly distasteful and disrespectful.

bolt understands how the media works......

Try to be as uninfluenced as possible by  the emotive reporting methods of the British media, most of whom have there own political agendas.

But people still believe what they read in the papers, or what thry hear, instead of saying to themselves "does this REALLY add up?".

Folks used to be the same with Doctors - "the doc said I need to rest for a week, so I can't go to work" - even though they were by now as fit as a fiddle. It's an authority thing I think.

listening to john nicol on the bbc this morning i have to agree with him

this is not an execption anymore

he was still serving when he wrote and published his book

the recent VC winner has also sold his story while serving

personally i thnk we should be hearing the true story rather than an "offical release" which would be edited to serve the MOD

now next year we will all be reading bits from tony blairs book after he stands down

so its ok for the guy who order the troops to war to make a million

but its not allright for the troops to make a few quid telling there side

or will you call his book distastfull?

The situation is not going well out there.

3 years on and still no WMD's

Thousands of people dead and two countries (Afghanistan & Iraq) destroyed. and the threat of a terrorist attack is now higher than before the US/Brits went in there.

Basically the government need a story to try to justify staying out there and a Story about "our boys" being captured and a feamle being "forced to wear a headscarf" will keep all the Sun & Daily Mail readers foaming at the mouth for a few more weeks.

not distasteful but cynical and calculated.