Remove your uniform because it is ‘offensive’

[Commander CMG]

For 15 years she has proudly served her country as a Royal Navy engineer, risking her life in Afghanistan when she fought against the Taliban.

But far from showing Nicky Howse the respect she deserved as she flew back to her latest posting, Virgin Atlantic staff chose to humiliate her – by demanding that she remove her uniform because it was ‘offensive’.

They warned the 32-year-old helicopter technician she would not be allowed to fly unless she took off her combat fatigues and wore a sleep suit instead.

Read more

[Mr.United_Nations]

Isn't there a rule where you are not allowed to wear uniforms?

[libstaK]

Isn't there a rule where you are not allowed to wear uniforms?

It's states clearly in the article there is no such rule but the Security Officer chose to propogate the idea that there was such a rule. This is disgraceful, I've flown on many international flights where there have been armed forces members in uniform for part of the flight or seen them coming and going regularly at airport terminals, what is going on in England that their armed forces are treated with such disrespect and publically ridiculed?

[Eldorado]

It's states clearly in the article there is no such rule but the Security Officer chose to propogate the idea that there was such a rule. This is disgraceful, I've flown on many international flights where there have been armed forces members in uniform for part of the flight or seen them coming and going regularly at airport terminals, what is going on in England that their armed forces are treated with such disrespect and publically ridiculed?

The country is full of Britain haters. 'Tis ok to fly any flag except the Union flag. Seriously. Proclaim you're proud to be British and you're immediately tarred as a fascist bigot.

I blame the Blairs and their ilk.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Eldorado

[libstaK]

The country is full of Britain haters. 'Tis ok to fly any flag except the Union flag. Seriously. Proclaim you're proud to be British and you're immediately tarred as a fascist bigot.

I blame the Blairs and their ilk.

That is so sad, they might as well stand in front of a mirror and proclaim that they hate themselves .

[DKO]

The country is full of Britain haters. 'Tis ok to fly any flag except the Union flag. Seriously. Proclaim you're proud to be British and you're immediately tarred as a fascist bigot.

I blame the Blairs and their ilk.

We have had a similar thing going on here the last few years. They want to change the name of Australia Day to Citizens Day. Apparently it offends people that weren't born in Australia. I guess they don't realise it's Australia Day not Australian Day.

[Commander CMG]

Isn't there a rule where you are not allowed to wear uniforms?

Since the Good Friday Agreement military personnel have been encouraged to wear uniform in public places however prior to that because of the security risk from the IRA, uniforms were restricted even if you were wearing it in your car, it had to be covered up with an over coat or a jacket.

Not sure what the situation is now regarding the wearing of uniforms in public places, it wouldnt surprize me if it was banned again, so we don't offend Muslims? and when I say Muslims, I don't mean this in a racist way, it’s because, they are the only ones that kick off when I wear my poppy, no one else seems to have a problem with it but it, just them. Oh boy & do I love it, when they tell me to my face that my Poppy offends them.

[ExpandMyMind]

Since the Good Friday Agreement military personnel have been encouraged to wear uniform in public places however prior to that because of the security risk from the IRA, uniforms were restricted even if you were wearing it in your car, it had to be covered up with an over coat or a jacket.

Was about to say this. It was previously real danger to publicly wear your uniform at the height of the IRA conflict.

It actually shows you how much of a real threat the IRA posed, as opposed to how much of a supposed threat today's terrorists pose. Soldiers have been encouraged more and more to wear their uniforms in public as the 'War on Terror' has aged - which completely polars the IRA era.

[Coffey]

Oh boy & do I love it, when they tell me to my face that my Poppy offends them.

It doesn't offend me, but I only see the Poppy as a sign of respect for WW1 and WW2.... Seeing as men and woman who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are not considered heroes in my view. They did not die for our freedom, they died for the oppisite sadly.

[Ashotep]

We have had a similar thing going on here the last few years. They want to change the name of Australia Day to Citizens Day. Apparently it offends people that weren't born in Australia. I guess they don't realise it's Australia Day not Australian Day.

Sometimes I think we are required to bend over backwards for immigrants too much. They are suppose to be becoming part of the country they moved to not the other way around.

[libstaK]

We have had a similar thing going on here the last few years. They want to change the name of Australia Day to Citizens Day. Apparently it offends people that weren't born in Australia. I guess they don't realise it's Australia Day not Australian Day.

As a fellow Australian I hadn't heard that, thank goodness. Here's hoping it's a loud minority that will be ignored.

[Mr Right Wing]

For 15 years she has proudly served her country as a Royal Navy engineer, risking her life in Afghanistan when she fought against the Taliban.

But far from showing Nicky Howse the respect she deserved as she flew back to her latest posting, Virgin Atlantic staff chose to humiliate her – by demanding that she remove her uniform because it was ‘offensive’.

They warned the 32-year-old helicopter technician she would not be allowed to fly unless she took off her combat fatigues and wore a sleep suit instead.

Read more

Offensive to who?

Terrorists?

[Bavarian Raven]

It doesn't offend me, but I only see the Poppy as a sign of respect for WW1 and WW2.... Seeing as men and woman who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are not considered heroes in my view. They did not die for our freedom, they died for the oppisite sadly.

They are just as much a hero as any soldier from ww2. To say otherwise is to be spitting in their face. At least they are brave enough to be fighting for their countries, unlike many on this form... (i dont mean this as a rant against just you, but the general hatred towards our brave men and women fighting right now)

Edited March 9, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[ExpandMyMind]

They are just as much a hero as any soldier from ww2. To say otherwise is to be spitting in their face. At least they are brave enough to be fighting for their countries, unlike many on this form... (i dont mean this as a rant against just you, but the general hatred towards our brave men and women fighting right now)

I'm actually quite torn in this respect when it comes to UK soldiers.

On the one hand, they are merely following orders and have signed up, at least some of them (those who didn't just sign up as a way to escape their own lives), to serve or protect their country, which is of course commendable. But then I look at these wars we are fighting. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, in my opinion, illegal wars. They do not conform to any model of justifiable self defence, in any way or by any stretch of the imagination (which also makes it more than just 'my' opinion). They are horrible acts of aggression carried out for elitist purposes and definitely not to serve the people of this country in any way.

So, on the one hand I should respect the soldiers, but on the other, they are fighting wars that they have no business fighting. What do I do? If we look at the German soldiers of WW2, should they too have all been given a free pass and should we respect them for they were only following orders? Were their wars or actions commendable, as we are told ours were? What about the Japanese? And if you think not, then why not?

Do you see my point?

It should never be as black and white as the government and media want it to be (and when looked at objectively, it actually never is). The idea that we should follow and support blindly our soldiers no matter what wars they fight in is EXTREMELY dangerous, and it is actually, in large part, what has led to so many regimes throughout time being able to carry out horrendous acts. In fairness, every soldier has a right to refuse orders he does not believe are legal or just or that don't follow international laws like the Rules of Engagement (though he or she will be punished quite harshly for refusing). So, I, personally, don't think anyone who does feel like not supporting our troops in their exploits in Afghanistan and Iraq is actually doing anything wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And, after all, is that not one of the ideals we hold so dear? That people are free to think and feel what they want about any given situation, and then are also free to voice such opinions?

Edited March 9, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[AsteroidX]

Sad state when you can fight and even die for your country and freedoms and when you come home where back to spitting on our veterans. People are just cold and lame these days without an ounce of common sense.

Edited March 9, 2013 by AsteroidX

[Commander CMG]

It doesn't offend me, but I only see the Poppy as a sign of respect for WW1 and WW2.... Seeing as men and woman who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are not considered heroes in my view. They did not die for our freedom, they died for the oppisite sadly.

I have to disagree, do you think they chose to fight in Iraq or Afghan, there all just following orders. Every man – woman that wears a uniform and fights for their country have my ultimate respect. They risk their lives so people can sleep safely in their beds at night and have the freedom there all so used to.

You might not agree with the wars today, let me tell you something… most of those soldiers out there fighting it don’t agree with it but there all heroes in my eyes.

Each and every active or dead soldier in the war against terrorism have the same respect from me as the dead soldiers of the WW1 & WW2.

[AsteroidX]

I agree xsas but the soldiers of old had it much much harder then what we see today. But respect is respect the same. It does not change because of the war/battle they fought in.

But a WW@ vet or WW1 vet when you talk to them were proud of the jobs they did something are vets are not getting out of there combat tours today. There is no greater goal or purpose to it. Its just nanny state policing. But thats truly a derail from your topic and anything that helps instill pride into the uniform and may prevent even 1 more suicide of a returning veteran has my support.

[Coffey]

I have to disagree, do you think they chose to fight in Iraq or Afghan, there all just following orders. Every man – woman that wears a uniform and fights for their country have my ultimate respect. They risk their lives so people can sleep safely in their beds at night and have the freedom there all so used to.

You might not agree with the wars today, let me tell you something… most of those soldiers out there fighting it don’t agree with it but there all heroes in my eyes.

Each and every active or dead soldier in the war against terrorism have the same respect from me as the dead soldiers of the WW1 & WW2.

Terrorism isn't real, it's propaganda.

I would respect any person who stood and defended their own country. The only people who have been doing this are the people who we are attacking. The innocent people and children we are slaughtering.

So no thye do not earn my respect. I would defend my freedom to my last breath with any weapon. I respect anyone who would do the same, but in the Middle East we are not fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for Tyranny and big money. If our soldiers disagreed thta much they would leave the forces and make it clear. Like some have, those who have get my respect. The soldiers who trhow their medals back at the faces of the goverment... They are true heroes, they stand against tyranny.

[Commander CMG]

Terrorism isn't real, it's propaganda.

I would respect any person who stood and defended their own country. The only people who have been doing this are the people who we are attacking. The innocent people and children we are slaughtering.

So no thye do not earn my respect. I would defend my freedom to my last breath with any weapon. I respect anyone who would do the same, but in the Middle East we are not fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for Tyranny and big money. If our soldiers disagreed thta much they would leave the forces and make it clear. Like some have, those who have get my respect. The soldiers who trhow their medals back at the faces of the goverment... They are true heroes, they stand against tyranny.

Terrorism isn't real, it's propaganda.

I would respect any person who stood and defended their own country. The only people who have been doing this are the people who we are attacking. The innocent people and children we are slaughtering.

So no thye do not earn my respect. I would defend my freedom to my last breath with any weapon. I respect anyone who would do the same, but in the Middle East we are not fighting for our freedom. We are fighting for Tyranny and big money. If our soldiers disagreed thta much they would leave the forces and make it clear. Like some have, those who have get my respect. The soldiers who trhow their medals back at the faces of the goverment... They are true heroes, they stand against tyranny.

Whys doesn’t a soldier leave if the disagree with what they are ordered to do? The sheer fact you are asking that question means you wouldn’t understand or accept the answer.

So terrorism isn't real, it's propaganda.

Terrorism is a difficult concept to define; it means different things to different people. It is impossible to define it in a concise manner, and while strict definitions are difficult, certain ingredients are comparatively stable. There are two sides of the coin: the instrumental side that wreaks destruction, and the message side, which broadcasts some propaganda. It moves from an element of understatement to exaggeration. The message of terrorism violently surpasses all other communication; its message is contained in the act itself. It can be as simple as threatening fingers drawn across a throat like a knife or an act of torture and mutilation - one way or the other it gets its message across.

There are all types of terrorist activities; and they are not necessarily political. During the last thirty years the United States has been so deluged with bombings, kidnappings, murders, violent protests and other emotional coercion that they have become immune to, threats that are part of our everyday life; threats that we do not label as "terrorist," but no matter how they are defined, the end result is the same: fear.

We're so accustomed to thinking of terrorists as "foreigners" who operate in other parts of the world, that we do not even realize the extent of terrorism in our own country. The explosion of an incendiary device in a department store, a razor blade in a Halloween apple, a loud mouth redneck with a bullhorn at an abortion clinic, the threat of a bomb in a hospital, white teenagers chasing black youths into speeding traffic, gangs attacking joggers, mail bombs sent to a corporation using animals in tests, poison in pills and food - the list can go on and on.

These incidents might be explained away with "just the acts of crazies," but it is more than that. These are all a form of terrorism: the pro-lifer verbally accosting a pregnant woman going into a clinic is performing his act because his cause is right. In the mirror of himself he's saving unborn children, and in the process has gotten his face on national television. Teenagers chasing blacks have a good cause; they are ridding their neighbourhood of the “N” word.

The cancerous growth of city gangs is a form of terrorism; each gang has some issue they believe is important, some ideal that justifies their acts.

During the last decades we've been hit with some true terrorist acts, and many times the reason behind them is not clear. Some individual has learned the techniques of terrorism and uses them for his own warped ends. Some of the incidents stand out as strong as blood in our memories: the individual who machined gunned a McDonald's in California, or the loner who systematically slaughtered patrons of a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas are strong examples. Others are the Charles Manson murders, the SLA/Patty Hurst revolution, the Black Panthers, The Weathermen: too many to list all of them.

Most of our terrorist activity started in the sixties with the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights movements. And this is the crux of the matter: what is patriotic fervour for some is insane activity for others. For instance, in 1945 an American succeeded in placing bombs in some important buildings in Germany; the result was the death of Nazi officers. To the Nazis he was a murderer; to us a hero. The terrorist hi-jacker of an airliner might be a hero to his followers, a villain to someone else. The viewpoint is the defining characteristic.

Today we live with the results; we've been deluged with so many fear-inspiring events, that we've almost become immune. So immune, that we do not recognize terrorism in our own country when it is knocking on the front door.

A New York City Rabbi; two close aides to Yasir Arafat; a Colombian newspaper editor; a former Guatemalan foreign minister; an Italian prosecutor; an American oil executive in Iran; a distinguished member of the British House Of Commons; a large number of police officers from all over the world: what do these people have in common? The answer is a bleak one: they, plus many more, were all victims of terrorist acts.

[Coffey]

I'll just reply with the fact I mean "terrorism" was false flag propaganda being used to start wars in the middle East. Because in this day and age, you cna't just attack someone else when you want somehting.

If 11 of the 15 terrorists where from Saudi Arabaia then why did we attack Iraq and Afghanistan?! Oh that's right, Saudi has US protection because it has ana greement to only sell it's oil in the Dollar.

So terrorism means a country who won't sell it's oil in the Dollar only or won't play the US's big money game.

The only true terrorists in the world are the CIA, the US and UK goverment along with the bankers and big oil companies. There's your terrorists. Now the "heroes" you speak of have their target if they want to bring freedom to their countries.

[Space Commander Travis]

It doesn't offend me, but I only see the Poppy as a sign of respect for WW1 and WW2.... Seeing as men and woman who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are not considered heroes in my view. They did not die for our freedom, they died for the oppisite sadly.

right.... So are you arguing that they should have refused to go? You do know that that's more than just a question of going on strike, and being able to complain to the Union if management try to discipline you? There are things like court martials, dishonourable discharges, and so on? That Military discipline rather frowns on soldiers refusing to go somewhere because they disagree with it on principle? Or do you believe that they signed up specifically because they wanted to Slaughter kids?

[Coffey]

right.... So are you arguing that they should have refused to go? You do know that that's more than just a question of going on strike, and being able to complain to the Union if management try to discipline you? There are things like court martials, dishonourable discharges, and so on? That Military discipline rather frowns on soldiers refusing to go somewhere because they disagree with it on principle? Or do you believe that they signed up specifically because they wanted to Slaughter kids?

I never signed up purely because I would not kill someone who is innocent.

Not really hard to not sign up in the first place is it.

[+and-then]

I'm actually quite torn in this respect when it comes to UK soldiers.

On the one hand, they are merely following orders and have signed up, at least some of them (those who didn't just sign up as a way to escape their own lives), to serve or protect their country, which is of course commendable. But then I look at these wars we are fighting. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, in my opinion, illegal wars. They do not conform to any model of justifiable self defence, in any way or by any stretch of the imagination (which also makes it more than just 'my' opinion). They are horrible acts of aggression carried out for elitist purposes and definitely not to serve the people of this country in any way.

So, on the one hand I should respect the soldiers, but on the other, they are fighting wars that they have no business fighting. What do I do? If we look at the German soldiers of WW2, should they too have all been given a free pass and should we respect them for they were only following orders? Were their wars or actions commendable, as we are told ours were? What about the Japanese? And if you think not, then why not?

Do you see my point?

It should never be as black and white as the government and media want it to be (and when looked at objectively, it actually never is). The idea that we should follow and support blindly our soldiers no matter what wars they fight in is EXTREMELY dangerous, and it is actually, in large part, what has led to so many regimes throughout time being able to carry out horrendous acts. In fairness, every soldier has a right to refuse orders he does not believe are legal or just or that don't follow international laws like the Rules of Engagement (though he or she will be punished quite harshly for refusing). So, I, personally, don't think anyone who does feel like not supporting our troops in their exploits in Afghanistan and Iraq is actually doing anything wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And, after all, is that not one of the ideals we hold so dear? That people are free to think and feel what they want about any given situation, and then are also free to voice such opinions?

I'm actually quite torn in this respect when it comes to UK soldiers.

On the one hand, they are merely following orders and have signed up, at least some of them (those who didn't just sign up as a way to escape their own lives), to serve or protect their country, which is of course commendable. But then I look at these wars we are fighting. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, in my opinion, illegal wars. They do not conform to any model of justifiable self defence, in any way or by any stretch of the imagination (which also makes it more than just 'my' opinion). They are horrible acts of aggression carried out for elitist purposes and definitely not to serve the people of this country in any way.

So, on the one hand I should respect the soldiers, but on the other, they are fighting wars that they have no business fighting. What do I do? If we look at the German soldiers of WW2, should they too have all been given a free pass and should we respect them for they were only following orders? Were their wars or actions commendable, as we are told ours were? What about the Japanese? And if you think not, then why not?

Do you see my point?

It should never be as black and white as the government and media want it to be (and when looked at objectively, it actually never is). The idea that we should follow and support blindly our soldiers no matter what wars they fight in is EXTREMELY dangerous, and it is actually, in large part, what has led to so many regimes throughout time being able to carry out horrendous acts. In fairness, every soldier has a right to refuse orders he does not believe are legal or just or that don't follow international laws like the Rules of Engagement (though he or she will be punished quite harshly for refusing). So, I, personally, don't think anyone who does feel like not supporting our troops in their exploits in Afghanistan and Iraq is actually doing anything wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And, after all, is that not one of the ideals we hold so dear? That people are free to think and feel what they want about any given situation, and then are also free to voice such opinions?

I understand and respect what you are saying here but I wonder at what point we reach an inability to defend ourselves at all in ANY circumstance? If the sacrifice is called into question and nullified due to personal opinions against a cause then there is NO cause worthy of support is there? I think the hand wringing can go too far. And as for considering soldiers to be practically war criminals for obeying what are considered to be lawful orders, well that's just PC run amok imo. When soldiers kill civilians in Afghanistan it can MOST of the time be accounted for due to proximity to non uniformed combatants and therefore is somewhat understandable. IOW it is unintentional though not excusable per se. Not to be confused with outright crime like what the soldier did last year who slaughtered those villagers. That was by ANY standard - inexcusable and he deserves to be executed for it.

[Space Commander Travis]

I never signed up purely because I would not kill someone who is innocent.

Not really hard to not sign up in the first place is it.

So that is what you believe? They signed up because they want to slaughter children?

Straight answer, pleaase, no responding with rhetorical questions.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Lord Vetinari

[keithisco]

It´s all over just a "Jobsworth" doing her worst

"They told her – wrongly – that it was the company’s policy not to allow military personnel to travel in uniform."

Edited March 9, 2013 by keithisco