View Full Version : General Sir Charles Guthrie.....
Disabled people on the 'front line'?
Anyone else think this is political correctness gone mad???
Do these 'pc' madmen even know what the hell they are talking about? What are they going to insist on next.
Wheelchairs attached to horses converting them to chariots?
Blind people flying helicopters and jets into battle?
Deaf people on patrol in a danger zone?
The very fact that these idiots are saying that disabled people should be allowed on the front line scares the sweet out of me. Do they know what a front line is? If they'd said 'should be allowed suitable employment' within the army I could have swallowed it.
FFS, not even I could get into the army, I'm not fit enough and my eyesights terrible. Doesn't give me the 'right' to be in the army though, and neither should a wheelchair or a white stick.
Before anyone jumps in fists flying, I have nothing against 'disabled' people, this isn't to do with them, this is to do with politically correct morons who seem to have too much time on their hands. Perhaps they should be conscripted for a couple of years.......
God they make me mad :angry:
Hmmmm, I haven't seen any specific details as yet on the proposed roles / degrees of disability, but I imagine it could easily turn into a deep lake covered in thin ice.
On the other hand...... Douglas Bader ??
FlyinBrick
21-12-2000, 00:51
I agree 100%
But the trouble is these cretins are led by clever people who have no other intention than to make political or capital gain from the argument.
Do you really think they care whether a guy in a wheelchair can defend himself from attack? No! They only care about the principle, and along with that principle comes a lot of monetary or political gain. Thats what they care about!
And if you object? Then you are just another bigoted, uneducated member of the public who is not capable of making a sensible judgement because you're stupid!
Ring any bells?
FlyinBrick
21-12-2000, 00:58
Douglas Bader was an exception, and like every exception, he was pretty unique in as much his usefulness outweighed his disabilities.
Put a cook in a wheelchair in the frontline, and it would take at least two people to keep him safe when under attack. Thats two less soldiers to defend a base!
And if you say the guy in the wheelchair shouldn't be at the frontline, then the argument is dead!
Do you think the enemy will give concessions to you because you use disabled forces? If you do then please tell me what colour is the sky on your planet?
Pathetic!
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that to put disabled people in situations where they would not be every bit as effective as able bodied personnel is both dangerous and foolhardy.
My point is that not every disability is automatically a liability to a fighting force in every situation. As you said, Baders' abilities far outweighed his disablilitie.
Providing NO special allowances need to be made for the disability, I don't think it should automatically prevent active service postings.
Thats my point Poptart m8, if these 'pc' fools had worded it differently my reaction would have been different - they didn't, I just watched some idiotic guy with nothing better to do, say that disabled people should be allowed 'on the front line' - his words, not mine.
And I'm sorry, quoting Bader as an example is wrong. Why? Flying a WWII plane is a lot different than flying modern aircraft, even with modern artificial legs he wouldn't be able to fly a military helicopter, and I imagine the 'G' forces in modern jets would be too much for his body to handle.
'No special allowances'? Fine as long as I'm allowed in with bad eyesight and a beer belly! ;)
I'm sure there are roles within the civilian and the administration/communications side of the army. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, before it turns the Great British fighting force into the Great British fighting farce.
British forces have already been decimated by discontent over 'humanitarian' issues forced on them by the EU, morale (from the 15 or so I know in the army) is low and people are leaving by the score, this could (and probably will) just make it worse.
Denholm Smythe
21-12-2000, 02:04
Firstly Gentlemen,
May one say, one is of the "Old School"
In my day, when a soldier or airman was wounded he was posted home, or to a department that required less than full physical ability.
Military personnel have to undergo rigourous physical training despite their trades, even a military Bandsman is a combatant first,musician secondary.
A sensible, politically incorrect Force of fighting men has no room for the physically disadvantaged whether they be disabled or not.
I have little time for political argy bargy, despite how well intended, because I wish my Country to be defended by the best all rounded individuals available.
In a conflict situation, no-one really cares about morals, we only care about defending our soveriegnty. Despite my allegiance to those lesser abled than the norm, the military has no room for them.
Leave the ministry of defence to do just that. Defend.
With a force of fit, fully abled fighting men.
Gentlemen I apologise for the long post.
Respectfully,
'Johnnie' Johnson
21-12-2000, 10:02
Originally posted by FlyinBrick
Douglas Bader was an exception, and like every exception, he was pretty unique in as much his usefulness outweighed his disabilities.
<anorak>
He wasn't an exception. There was another legless pilot in the RAF, but his self-publicity machine was so poor I can't remember his name.
As for WWII aircraft being suitable for somebody with artificial legs on modern ones not, it isn't even as simple as that. If the RAF had been flying Mustangs in 1940 Bader would be flying a desk, because he wouldn't have been able to manage the toe-operated brake controls.
</anorak>
Samson, what do you reckon the G-forces are in a Hercules or Nimrod? Sufficient to badly affect a wheelchair user? (Note: that was a serious question, not a rhetorical one.)
Interesting comment on bandsmen Dehholm. My other half's grandfather was a bandsman with the Lancashire Fusiliers, and he only had one lung, and was with them in the South African War. I don't know if that counts as frontline duty. Disabled? Possibly, it depends on your disability, and how you define disability.
I haven't seen or heard what the people advocating this have actually said, and in the days of soundbite reporting I doubt that if I had heard it I'd be getting the full picture.
must admit im a bit confused here as some one i know was born with the lower part of her right arm missing yet she was accepted into the army 9 years ago but had to decline as she became pregnant.
BTW i wouldn't mess with her in a fight.
re the other raf pilot, wasn't he a south african or something similar.
in general (no pun intended) if they want the armed forces to use disabled people, then let them be allowed to use them for the support jobs such as clerks etc and then free off the able bodied (h8 that term) for frontline duties.
I think the point of view rests on how pessimistic you are.
If you beleive that one day our entire armed forces will be at war then you imo you cannot have disabled people in that kind of war, but if your an optimist and believe that this country will never be involved in another World War or Korea/Falklands wotever, then the disabled should be allowed to fill at least clerks positions or wotever.
But on the frontline?
Originally posted by Poptart
On the other hand...... Douglas Bader ??
Yeah, but in those days if we lost, the world would of been plunged into darkness and hell.
Nowadays, its not quite so important.
The government arn't doin' this because they're scumbags, they're doin' this because they could prove to be a danger to themselves and others around them.
And legs are important when dealing with 'G' effects, muscles can stop the blood draining down, so your head ca still opperate!
This whole issue is along the same lines of allowing gays and women into the armed forces. At the end of the day, we aren't talking about the Royal Marines going into battle in wheelchairs, are we?
Even if they allow disabled (and that is an extremely broad term in itself) people into the forces, how many disabled people will actually want to join up? And even if they do, they must surely accept that they will probably not be flying Eurofighters or jumping out of planes.
It is a bit PC-mad I agree, and smacks of doing it for the sake of it rather than any practical need, but if someone with a physical disability is just as capable of doing a desk job in the MOD (or wherever) as an able-bodied person, then I guess they should get the chance.
Of course there is a simple way around this... Create a series of conditions which must be met covering physical abilities (eyesight, mobility, etc.). If you pass the tests fine, if not, sorry.
Probably a fair point there JJ, I imagine there are some extremely physically fit less able bodied people in or out of wheelchairs able to cope with the rigors of aircraft built for flying and not comfort. The point is though, in an already streched to capacity armed forces, if even one wheelchaired or otherwise disabled person needs extra help to be able to fly or fly in then it will only stretch the forces further.
Mebe, there are already a series of conditions to be met to join, this is exactly what these 'pc' morons are trying to change. It's only because they're there that they want to change them.
And legs are important when dealing with 'G' effects, muscles can stop the blood draining down, so your head ca still opperate!
:laugh: can i just morbidly point out that u dont need the muscles in yer legs to stop blood flowing from your head into your legs.. if u dont have any legs in the 1st place! no where for the blood to go!
oh yeah and women make excellent fighter pilots apparently.
Can anyone actually give me a quote from a 'pc madman' that says that disabled people should be allowed on the front line? I can't find one. This sounds like the usual crap to me.
Can't seem to find any written quotes, in fact it sems to have disappeared from the news all together now (probably not a bad thing). All I can go on is what I saw on BBC2 Newsnight last night. Can't remember the name of the guy or the group he represents (same one that started off the woman and gay rights to be in the army I believe). And his actual words were along the line of - 'disabled people have the right to be on the front line' - blokes a nutter, needs to be tied to a wheelchair and dropped of with a patrol in a warzone somewhere, I'm sure he'd change his views then.
Yeah, its been scientifically proven that womens bodies can cope better with 'G' effects, so therefore would make better combat pilots.
Purplegoat
21-12-2000, 18:07
May I just poke my Horns into this thread! :E
Firstly, I think as many have said, Political Correctness has gone completely mad and it will only get worse before it gets better.
Where do you draw the line? Nobody has pointed out that Douglas Bader became disabled "AFTER" FLYING FOR MANY YEARS!
When he joined he was very much able bodied and therefore not relevant to the dabate. That silly Doris from Labour needs to go and do some research before opening her un-educated gob again! :angry:
As fortunes have been spent in training the armed forces then we must use the personnel we have, to their best resources. However, with resources being so scarce nowadays, we must pick the very best that we can, who can do as many different jobs as they can. Whilst a disabled person can do many things, there are also a great deal more things they cannot do in terms of frontline duty.
I am in no way shape or form against disabled people and I only wish I had as much courage and conviction for life as many show, However.
I was not permitted to become a Fighter Pilot years ago at the selection at Biggin Hill, due to a miniscule colour deficiency when mixing greens and reds together. I have to say I have never come across this scenario in real life and can see all colours without problem, but those jumbled up dot cards caused a problem.
However, I'm sure that if I had been a slightly disabled, single, black lesbian mother of goat! Then I am sure with the support of many minority groups and the European Court of Human rights could possibly have forced the RAF to train me as a pilot! :angry:
I along with many others have to accept the rules for the greater good of the country as opposed to my own rights and that is where this and many countries are going completely to the dog house. Everyone is so wrapped up in their own self-indulgent world of " ITS MY RIGHT!". What no one single person has ever pointed out on TV, Radio or Newspaper, is that everyone cannot do what they want when they want, there have to be some form of rules.
If there are no rules, Anachy ensues and then it comes down to survival of the fittest.
Now, if we are to allow the political idiots, MORONS, and general wastes of space to speak on matters they know nothing about, they will ultimately face an enormous public backlash.
General Gutherie is a well respected soldier throughout the world with some of the greatest experience in defence matters. I am totally disgusted that some middle aged HOUSEWIFE TURNED MP! thinks she has the right to question the mans opinion for the good of the future defence forces.
Many apologies for the long post, but forums like this are the only way people can get their true feelings across and it seems the politicians elected by the people for the people, have not got a bloody clue what the people actually think! :angry:
Bah! Its my Birthday today and this has gotten my Goat! something cronic!
ALCOHOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:E
Regards all
Purplegoat[WILDCARDS]
'Johnnie' Johnson
21-12-2000, 18:53
Regarding the events that led up to this debate, I was informed by a colleague that it started like this:
2 blokes already serving in the Army developed diabetes. Apparently the form and treatment were virtually identical. One soldier was allowed to stay on, the other wasn't. The reason was down to their Commanding Officers having different opinions on the matter. The result is that the one who was dropped went for an unfair dismissal claim.
I have no idea at all if any of the above is true. It sounds plausible. It would seem that the original cause of the debate is the discarding of people with 'disabilities' after they've been through all the expensive training, rather than whether they should be allowed in the first place.
Goat, you're a touch out on the Bader front. As a result of his disability he was given a desk job, which he didn't like and so left. He continued flying in a private capacity though, which must have stood him in good stead when he applied to rejoin the RAF. They didn't have to take him on, so it is still a relevant point.
This is slightly closer to home than I anticipated - my father developed diabetes many years ago when he was serving in the RAF. After the initial damage to his body he was quite stable and he was able to stay on. However, the medical downgrading meant that even though he was ground crew he could kiss goodbye to any chance of promotion, so he took the redundancy currently on offer and left.
"It’s ridiculous to exclude disabled people from serving in the armed forces because of some outdated stereotype. By extending anti disability discrimination legislation to the armed forces disabled people will be able to apply for jobs for which they are best suited. This could be in non-combative roles such as logistics, supplies or administration but there is no reason that a person with, say, a facial disfigurement, could not serve on the front line."
Taken from -
http://www.drc-gb.org/drc/Documents/Armed%20forces%20discrimination.doc
I'm sorry, I don't count someone with a disfigurement which causes no reduction in physical capabilities as disabled. If any disfigurment causes partial deafness, speech or sight, then yes, they may be considered disabled, but they should never be considered for front line duty.
Originally posted by Purplegoat
However, I'm sure that if I had been a slightly disabled, single, black lesbian mother of goat!
You mean you're not?? Gah all illusions shattered :eek: :E
Happy Burfday btw :)
Feathers
21-12-2000, 21:40
Originally posted by Marky B
I think the point of view rests on how pessimistic you are.
If you beleive that one day our entire armed forces will be at war then you imo you cannot have disabled people in that kind of war, but if your an optimist and believe that this country will never be involved in another World War or Korea/Falklands wotever, then the disabled should be allowed to fill at least clerks positions or wotever.
But on the frontline?
Sorry m8, but imho you always have to be pessimistic and prepare for, or be able to prepare for at very short notice, the wosrt case scenario...
'Johnnie' Johnson
22-12-2000, 09:57
Originally posted by Marky B
I think the point of view rests on how pessimistic you are.
If you beleive that one day our entire armed forces will be at war then you imo you cannot have disabled people in that kind of war, but if your an optimist and believe that this country will never be involved in another World War or Korea/Falklands wotever, then the disabled should be allowed to fill at least clerks positions or wotever.
But on the frontline?
If the past is anything to go by it works the other way around.
When times are desperate the Army might be willing to take on anybody. WWI is a good example. At the beginning they had strict height requirements, but because of the losses they ended up dropping them, with the result that 'Bantam' units were formed of short soldiers. Likewise as the war ground on, wounded men found themselves more likely to be back in the front line.
On the other hand it's peacetime armies that can afford to be very picky about who they take.
I did hear some Army spokesman on the radio saying that all soldiers had to be ready and able to take a rifle and get stuck in, and on that basis he wasn't prepared to countenance 'disabled' soldiers in any sort of capacity.
paulfitzs
22-12-2000, 10:44
Quote Samson:-
"If any disfigurment causes partial deafness, speech or sight, then yes, they may be considered disabled, but they should never be considered for front line duty."
Gunners in Nelson's time were stone deaf. Even if not to start with they soon ended up that way. A disability may not be apparent to the primary role of the person involved so should not therefore be a bar to serving. Nelson himself was supposed to suffer badly from seasickness.
Remember the Navy Ads on TV a year or so ago? Pizza delivery boy on moped with caption "Jump Jet Pilot, if he'd joined the Navy". God, I creased up at that one! Have you seen them on a moped, given the choice who would you trust with a £50m plane Pizza Boy or Steven Hawking?
Modern planes can handle G way beyond what ANY human body can handle so the days of piloted planes may be numbered anyway. I understand research is well underway on remote flight so it may be possible to be in the front line on the other side of the world a wheelchair is no problem then.
Guerilla armies use all sorts of people, women, children, old men etc, this can sometimes have a psychological advantage. You are in the front line, all of a sudden you are confronted by an enemy who is crippled/female/12 years old, even a fraction of a seconds hesitation may cost you your life.
I am in overall agreement with the General's comments but where the disability does not hamper the explicit (or likely) tasks that the person should perform give them the job.
Basicly what I'm saying is Common Sense not Political Correctness should prevail.
couldnt believe what i saw yesterday on the mid day news.
the army may be in breach of health and safety regulations due to the noise of artiliary being fired and exploading shells etc.
i assume that if war broke out, these same idiots would attempt to prosecute the enemy for breaking health and safety regulations by firing projectiles at out our troops
paulfitzs
22-12-2000, 11:21
Tinvek,
You missed the best part of that story, military bands are too loud as well, brilliant!!!
"i assume that if war broke out, these same idiots would attempt to prosecute the enemy for breaking health and safety regulations by firing projectiles at out our troops"
I don't know how true it is but I read the Germans complained unger the Geneva Convention when a Lancaster crew chucked out their Elsan over Berlin.
Blaze of Glory
22-12-2000, 11:29
Just you wait, it won't be long before some idiot says that before you fire a shell at the enemy, you have to get them to sign that they understand the COSHH regulations regaring it's use. Then you can fire.
Originally posted by tinvek
the army may be in breach of health and safety regulations due to the noise of artiliary being fired and exploading shells etc.
Ah well, let's not worry about it, just wait till they're all deaf then we can sack 'em for being 'disabled'...
'Johnnie' Johnson
22-12-2000, 17:13
Originally posted by tinvek
couldnt believe what i saw yesterday on the mid day news.
the army may be in breach of health and safety regulations due to the noise of artiliary being fired and exploading shells etc.
See the previous post on gunners from Nelson's time.
Ear protectors have been issued to servicemen for decades. Obviously the Armed Forces recognise that going deaf because of doing your job is a bad thing. Presumably they may be in breach of H&S because the protection provided isn't as effective as hoped for.
Should people be expected to give up their future health because of the demands of their training? If the equipment exists that could prevent this happening shouldn't it be issued? Or is that just political correctness gone mad.
I wonder - do firefighters still use asbestos as part of their protective gear? If not, was it idiocy to stop issuing such equipment?
My two cents...
Of course, if someone has a disability which would endanger their life or someone else's life in battle then it's ridiculous to assume that they should be put into that situation.
On the other hand, saying that because someone is disabled they can not serve in the army is even more ridiculous. The term 'disabled' covers an awful lot of disabilities, and just because someone falls under this blanket term it doesn't mean they couldn't serve in a particular post in the armed forces. Obviously, you're not going to put someone who's blind in one eye in a Tornado, but saying that someone with one leg can't do a desk job in London is plain daft.
So... that's what I think.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.