• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

SpectrumFX

Government prepares for civil unrest?

Recommended Posts

The government are issuing official ID cards to ex forces people. It'll take the form of a special veterans version of the driver's license, or a bespoke card for those that don't have a driving licence.

http://www.forces.net/news/veterans-be-formally-recognised-official-id-cards

On the face of it, it's all fairly innocuous, but it seems to me that the ability of ex-forces people to identify themselves as such, quickly, and authoritatively with an official ID could get very useful to the government in a SHTF civil unrest situation.

Edited by SpectrumFX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm way more cynical.  This from the article:

He said the ID option was part of Government plans to improve the information it keeps about ex-military personnel.

 

it will enable the to keep tabs so that conscription is much easier. Agree thoug it's for a shtf scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting timing...

On a parallel note, I've often been amazed by the lack of respect/recognition for ex-forces in the UK.

I remember once, in the US, visiting a restaurant with a colleague, ex forces and (but?) not dressed up with medals or anything.  A guy recognised him as we were entering / he was leaving, stopped, shook his hand and said something along the lines of 'thank you for your service'.  The waiter at the door then, understanding that the guy was ex-forces, fawned on the guy as he took him to the table, then gave us a discount (or similar -- I wasn't paying that much attention) and some freebies (booze?dessert?  can't remember).  

That was Texas -- not sure if it is normal in the other states.  It has stuck with me as an indication of the profound difference the UK and (parts of the) US treat serving and ex- military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's to make it easier to recognise them so that they are easier to be rounded up. I am convinced that there is a plan to reduce British military to such an extent that ISIS 'combatants' will oneday outnumber British military. When the people call for the armed forces to help there simply will not be many left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

It's to make it easier to recognise them so that they are easier to be rounded up. I am convinced that there is a plan to reduce British military to such an extent that ISIS 'combatants' will oneday outnumber British military. When the people call for the armed forces to help there simply will not be many left.

Perhaps not this extreme, but the cynic in me says the powers that be want to be able to keep a close eye on just how many people have military training in the UK. That could either be to suppress the native British in some way, or it could be also to keep an eye on persons of a particular persuasion who may join up to get a bit of free terrorist training, like the IRA used to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all this fawning on those who have served in the military. For many of them it was either that or the dole, there was no high ideal if serving the country. Many of them wouldn't have been very employable elsewhere.

Personally if a restaurant for example offers military personnel a discount and I can't avail myself of a similar discount via voucher websites etc I take my business elsewhere. Why should I pay more to subsidise some thick squaddie who on any given night in the pub is likely to drunkenly punch someone for having the audacity to be a civilian.

Many servicemen are decent people but a surprising percentage are utter cunts. Just like the civilian population. Is a nurse worth less? A policeman? A dustman? A library assistant? A water company employee? All do important jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgul said:

Interesting timing...

On a parallel note, I've often been amazed by the lack of respect/recognition for ex-forces in the UK.

I remember once, in the US, visiting a restaurant with a colleague, ex forces and (but?) not dressed up with medals or anything.  A guy recognised him as we were entering / he was leaving, stopped, shook his hand and said something along the lines of 'thank you for your service'.  The waiter at the door then, understanding that the guy was ex-forces, fawned on the guy as he took him to the table, then gave us a discount (or similar -- I wasn't paying that much attention) and some freebies (booze?dessert?  can't remember).  

That was Texas -- not sure if it is normal in the other states.  It has stuck with me as an indication of the profound difference the UK and (parts of the) US treat serving and ex- military.

Standard across America.

If you go to any event in Florida, they will call on the military to stand up and they will receive rapturous applause.

The French seem to have the same respect.

We appear to be embarrassed by our servicemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Standard across America.

If you go to any event in Florida, they will call on the military to stand up and they will receive rapturous applause.

The French seem to have the same respect.

We appear to be embarrassed by our servicemen.

I think there are historic reasons for that. 

The American admiration for the forces is connected with their right to bear arms. (ie, their right to defend themselves in organised militias rather than be made to join a standing army).

Even though they have had a standing army for decades and had conscription from 1940 to 1973, they still have the noble idea of the militiaman.

I think in France it's something similar, the army are seen as the remnant of a revolutionary citizens' force protecting liberte, egalite et fraternite.

By contrast in Britain, the army are still the dreaded redcoats, come to smash up your farm and impress your sons into service for Butcher Cumberland or some other aristocrat. 

Plus of course the Irish and Scots have a long tradition of hating the British army. 

The US forces from what I hear are also very well behaved, it has much more of a Christian, lower middle class suburban ethos than in Britain, where it tends to draw its rankers from what Wellington called 'the scum of the earth'. 

 

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Masked Tulip said:

It's to make it easier to recognise them so that they are easier to be rounded up. I am convinced that there is a plan to reduce British military to such an extent that ISIS 'combatants' will oneday outnumber British military. When the people call for the armed forces to help there simply will not be many left.

 

When I wrote the above I realised that it read like the paranoid thoughts of a conspiracy nut. Reading it back now, yep, it certainly does. But we have seen so much right is wrong and wrong is right 1984 thinking in the UK/West in recent years that I do wonder WTF is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it something to do with this.

Quote

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42405698/you-are-never-mutineers-bercow-urges-mps-to-uphold-principles

Commons Speaker John Bercow defends the right of MPs to vote on Brexit in line with their principles, saying they are "dedicated public servants" and "never mutineers, traitors, malcontents nor enemies of the people".

 

Apparently he didn't say they were never expenses fraudsters, banking poodles and creeps for cushy sinecure jobs - and all the rest.  To supplement their "rations" as he is quoted in referring to his Parliamentary income..

Of course it's already a well established fact that politicians are unmitigated liars so him saying MPs aren't something must mean exactly the opposite. 

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I think there are historic reasons for that. 

The American admiration for the forces is connected with their right to bear arms. (ie, their right to defend themselves in organised militias rather than be made to join a standing army).

Even though they have had a standing army for decades and had conscription from 1940 to 1973, they still have the noble idea of the militiaman.

I think in France it's something similar, the army are seen as the remnant of a revolutionary citizens' force protecting liberte, egalite et fraternite.

By contrast in Britain, the army are still the dreaded redcoats, come to smash up your farm and impress your sons into service for Butcher Cumberland or some other aristocrat. 

Plus of course the Irish and Scots have a long tradition of hating the British army. 

The US forces from what I hear are also very well behaved, it has much more of a Christian, lower middle class suburban ethos than in Britain, where it tends to draw its rankers from what Wellington called 'the scum of the earth'. 

 

Superbly argued.

Makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it is to do with tracking the Army Reserve.

Basically most modern defence policy decisions have been based around cutting manpower numbers in the regular army and hoping the reserve will fill the gaps if the balloon goes up . That is not a issue if the reserve is basically only used for home deployment and to defend the UK. The problem occurs when someone like Tony Blair decides to do some military and foreign policy showboating in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan where the regular army cannot hope to meet all the combat commitments assigned to them and you start seeing reservists being asked to multiple tours of duty to fill the gaps. The idea that you can run the army like some sort of cheapskate  zero hours contract delivery company is a recipe for failure as the army's performance in both conflicts proved. 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

I suspect it is to do with tracking the Army Reserve.

Basically most modern defence policy decisions have been based around cutting manpower numbers in the regular army and hoping the reserve will fill the gaps if the balloon goes up . That is not a issue if the reserve is basically only used for home deployment and to defend the UK. The problem occurs when someone like Tony Blair decides to do some military and foreign policy showboating in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan where the regular army cannot hope to meet all the combat commitments assigned to them and you start seeing reservists being asked to multiple tours of duty to fill the gaps. The idea that you can run the army like some sort of cheapskate  zero hours contract delivery company is a recipe for failure as the armies performance in both conflicts proved. 

I'd be interested in hearing how full-time soldiers feel about serving with TA's inserted into their units

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More mercenaries rather than regular soldiers?

To defend MPs who are "never mutineers, traitors, malcontents nor enemies of the people". xD

They can present their case when on trial.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Knock Out Johnny said:

I'd be interested in hearing how full-time soldiers feel about serving with TA's inserted into their units

You really wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Knock Out Johnny said:

I'd be interested in hearing how full-time soldiers feel about serving with TA's inserted into their units

Most of the RAF reserves I served with were sound. As my circumstances changed, I vw'd without having to serve any time as a reserve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Company Shop offers discount to food workers,  NHS, police etc - maybe if ex-forces got an ID they'd get bargain food too.

 

Company Shop eligibility

To qualify for Company Shop Limited membership, applicants must:

  • Be over 18 years of age
  • Either be employed by, or are retirees of our partners, OR
  • Work in the emergency services – including the Fire Brigade, Police and those employed directly by the NHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dgul said:

Interesting timing...

On a parallel note, I've often been amazed by the lack of respect/recognition for ex-forces in the UK.

I remember once, in the US, visiting a restaurant with a colleague, ex forces and (but?) not dressed up with medals or anything.  A guy recognised him as we were entering / he was leaving, stopped, shook his hand and said something along the lines of 'thank you for your service'.  The waiter at the door then, understanding that the guy was ex-forces, fawned on the guy as he took him to the table, then gave us a discount (or similar -- I wasn't paying that much attention) and some freebies (booze?dessert?  can't remember).  

That was Texas -- not sure if it is normal in the other states.  It has stuck with me as an indication of the profound difference the UK and (parts of the) US treat serving and ex- military.

I never really understood the forced respect of the armed forces idea. I view it as a job, I wouldn't fawn over someone who said they were a fireman for example. Never really been able to read an explanation of why those in the armed forces should be offered the utmost respect, they opted to do it knowing the risks. Can someone explain? Not saying I agree with them being shafted by the government, but it's all a bit OTT for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

I never really understood the forced respect of the armed forces idea. I view it as a job, I wouldn't fawn over someone who said they were a fireman for example. Never really been able to read an explanation of why those in the armed forces should be offered the utmost respect, they opted to do it knowing the risks. Can someone explain? Not saying I agree with them being shafted by the government, but it's all a bit OTT for me.

I talked about the difference in how we and the Americans treat Veterans with a friend of mine one time, and he reckoned it's to do with us being an old nation, and then being a relatively new one.

New nations apparently tend towards a more fervent expressive nationalism that comes from a lack of historical identity. Older nations are more comfortable in their cultural identity, so feel less need to wave flags, have parades, and generally go on about themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, the gardener said:

I don't understand all this fawning on those who have served in the military. For many of them it was either that or the dole, there was no high ideal if serving the country. Many of them wouldn't have been very employable elsewhere.

Personally if a restaurant for example offers military personnel a discount and I can't avail myself of a similar discount via voucher websites etc I take my business elsewhere. Why should I pay more to subsidise some thick squaddie who on any given night in the pub is likely to drunkenly punch someone for having the audacity to be a civilian.

Many servicemen are decent people but a surprising percentage are utter cunts. Just like the civilian population. Is a nurse worth less? A policeman? A dustman? A library assistant? A water company employee? All do important jobs.

a fair point,but i tend to only think of recently and my step son who has done 2 tours of shit holes and is a royal engineer so did a lot of looking for ieds,after blair promised no patrol will ever leave without being led by someone trained in finding em.

23 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

I talked about the difference in how we and the Americans treat Veterans with a friend of mine one time, and he reckoned it's to do with us being an old nation, and then being a relatively new one.

New nations apparently tend towards a more fervent expressive nationalism that comes from a lack of historical identity. Older nations are more comfortable in their cultural identity, so feel less need to wave flags, have parades, and generally go on about themselves.

 

it could also be about our perceved stiff uper lip and not geting emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

a fair point,but i tend to only think of recently and my step son who has done 2 tours of shit holes and is a royal engineer so did a lot of looking for ieds,after blair promised no patrol will ever leave without being led by someone trained in finding em.

it could also be about our perceved stiff uper lip and not geting emotional.

I think that is the critical point, many joined the forces in anticipation of being properly supported whilst doing their job, that in many cases they were not and also unnecessarily embroiled in conflicts with dubious benefit to the country. It sways the argument somewhat that they have been short-changed compared to others and deserve somewhat more recognition of their circumstances, as even if not physically scarred as a result of their duties many are mentally as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.