No Room At The Inn

[dinger]

What do you think about the serviceman just back from Afghanistan being refused a room at a hotel because he was a member of the Armed Forces. I believe he should have been welcomed and respected .What are your views.

[jazzactivist]

I think that it depends on the values and principles of the people who own and operate the hotel. I think that the pressure put on the hotel owners to apologise was unfair, as we all have the human right in the UK to express our opinions without oppression. There seems to be a general opinion being promoted in the UK that war is good and armed forces personnel are heroes but not everyone feels that way about it, including some business owners and their staff. Maybe they have links with Afghanistan or Iraq and don't agree with Britain's role or behaviour there. Also, it sounds a bit of a bizarre story that he just turned up, didn't get the room, and then had to sleep in his car. My guess is that there were other hotels and B+Bs around that would have welcomed him. I am anti-war, and if I ran a hotel or similar establishment I would reserve the right not to cater for armed forces personnel either.

[dinger]

I am anti war as well Jazz but could we really be without our armed forces what if we were invaded we would be like sitting ducks just waiting for our country to be overtaken .I respect what our men and women do to keep us safe .

[souter girl]

Oh Jazz - is it fair to blame British policy on our armed forces? It's the politicians who got us into this situation and we, the electorate who put them in power. But you may have a point about the "whole story", newspapers so often make up half of what they print just to make a story. You only have to know something about the background to an article to see how many mistakes there are, or how some less than scrupulous journalists twist the facts to suit themselves.

[jazzactivist]

I agree with you, souter girl, that the press twist the facts to make a 'better' storyline. However, I think that publicly we are in a situation where it seems OK to say that we are anti war, but not to act on our beliefs on a daily basis. Any small rejection is seen as not being supportive of our armed forces. I don't think that it is possible to be anti-war, but pro armed forces. The government did get us into this mess, but people who choose to work for the armed forces can't just sit back and say that they are just doing their job and expect to be treated as heroes. Whether they like it or not they do have blood on their hands, as they are all part of the war industry whatever their role in it. I think that the hotel owners should have spoken out instead of pretending they didn't mean it to avoid a confrontation with the press. I wouldn't feel comfortable having a trained killer sleeping under my roof, and feel very uneasy if I see uniformed forces personnel in the street or in restaurants etc. It isn't that they are rude or misbehave in any way, it is what they represent. I think that a lot of people feel as I do, but are quite often afraid to say it. Hopefully, this man's uncomfortable night in the car gave him ample opportunity to wonder if he is really doing the right thing by working for the forces.

[souter girl]

If it had been a Muslim turned away by the hotelier e.g because of the July bombs or 9/11 or any ethnic group wouldn't he have been subject to prosecution? Again the individual is being held accountable for someone else's actions. Few people felt that Saddam Hussein's regime was a just and fair one and there were some truly awful stories about how Iraqis suffered, was it not right to intervene? I would personally applaud any intervention by Britain or the UN in Zimbabwe today as my heart bleeds for all its inhabitants who are being starved to death by a truly psychopathic dictator.Many members of our armed forces are rightly described as heroes facing death daily often under-protected by the penny-pinching of our politicians. Yes they are trained but they are also disciplined , the term "trained killers" is very emotive and covers various shades of meaning ranging from legitimate servicemen or police to "hit-men".
A friend's daughter is currently at Sandhurst and[I] can't see her like that. I would never dream of holding her or any soldier responsible for the decisions of political leaders. I think we will have to agree to differ!!!

[sandybay]

I think the hotel have a valid point if it is a deliberate policy.
Just look at some garrison towns on a Saturday night and the reputation [often deserved] off duty squaddies have for drinking and hell raising. Look at the recent prison figures which show that a high rate of soldiers end up in prison.
One wonders whether a touch of sociopathic behaviour has to be part of their makeup to make them consider a career killing people.

Off duty soldiers obviously have the right to book hotels as part of family holidays etc. but then should be in plain clothes.

The true heroes in our society are people like paramedics and firemen who risk their lives saving others rather than building a career based around the use of violence.

[souter girl]

Well I'm just grateful for the men and women you consider "sociopaths" (defined as "people with a personality disorder, manifesting itself in extreme anti-social attitudes and behaviour" O.E.D.) who fought for freedom in World War 2. My father was one of the liberators of Belsen and my father-in-law was decorated for leading No 4. Commandoes on D-day - "sociopaths"? I think not!

[jazzactivist]

I agree with sandybay. I have worked with a lot of ex-offenders and it was striking how many of them had either been in the armed forces themselves, or were from military families. The armed forces frequently recruit in impoverished areas where there are a lot of young people without qualifications or jobs, and who quite often already have a police record. I think that there has to be something either very naive and immature or openly or latently violent about a person who chooses to do a job that involves killing or harming other people, or work supporting those who do. People know that this is what they will be expected to do when they sign up, and if they still go ahead and do it then they have to accept that not all civilians will welcome them. I seems to me that all of us are responsible for the type of work that we do and the companies or services that we work for, and have to make the decision whether we want to do that type of work or continue with it. I also don't think that people in the armed forces are necessarily disciplined with their knowledge and behaviour. You only have to see how Iraqi captives and civilians have been treated to know that. I don't think that Britain has the right to intervene in other countries' issues, unless it is to provide humanitarian help and there are lots of other types of agencies that specialise in that work. The "armed forces" are exactly what it says on the tin.

[Clunkshift]

I was surprised that the hotel refused to take a soldier as one thing you can be certain of with military personnel is that all outstanding bill will be paid, as will any damages - the Army stops it out of their pay.

Woking is quite near to Pirbright so they should be well used to soldiers but the town also has the first mosque ever built in this country.

As to soldiers and prisons, there is a problem with taking in young lads from poor backgrounds and sheltering them in a system that controls every aspect of their life. When they leave, they have no experience of finding accomodation, budgeting finances and thinking for themselves. The armed forces should have a system to prepare them for normal life before they are discharged.
this doesn't apply so much to the brighter ones who learn a trade but leaving the army is a bit like suddenly losing both parents.

(swmbo comes from a military background and I grew up just outside Aldershot)

[keepersdaughter]

I think it's easy to paint a certain secter of the military as thugs and yobs. The majority don't fall into that category I don't think, they are just the ones you hear about. Probably the confines of cramped accommodation, drilling, having every aspect of your life controlled and ordered about leads these lads to let off steam in the worst way when they are free of the military confines of their garrison or base. Police have training with firearms, I don't necessarily think that makes them trained killers. They also have to go in to very dangerous situations and be prepared to take a life in the defense of innocent victims - that has to lie on their concience and I don't think it is for any one to sit in judgement of them. You probably are rubbing shoulders with military every day in the supermarket, in your neighbourhoods without even being aware of it, you wouldn't think of these strangers or even acquaintances as evil people who get a thrill out of killing without their uniforms, so maybe it's just the uniform and not the person underneath it where the problem lies.

[dinger]

I was listening to a debate on the radio today and one of the callers was a serviceman.
Some people were phoning in saying these young men choose to be in the forces as their career.In his response he brought up an interesting point he said agreed he has chosen to do this job ,he also pointed out if others like him did'nt do this we would see conscripted soldiers again as the country could be left open to all manner of attacks. Would the ordinary men who had'nt chosen to do it but had been made to by law still looked on as trained killers who we should fear just wondered what your views would be on this .x

[Crocus]

I'm not living in the UK and cannot comment on this really, but I do wonder if the opposite of being a "trained killer" is perhaps a "trained guardian?" Who will guard one's country if there arn't trained soldiers to do this? xx

[jazzactivist]

The thing is that you have to believe that Britain is likely to be attacked to be able to support having a military. Having lived and worked in other countries, I am sure that no-one thinks of the UK very much at all, other than perhaps as a small island in the Atlantic that might be a useful missile base sometime. By the British government acting with the US in invading Afghanistan and Iraq our country has actually become more of a target, and our military profile enhanced, and this is used as a means to justify more spending on the armed forces and weapons. And so it becomes self-perpetuating. To me, it seems a bit like not renewing the Norton Anti-virus on your computer. When you buy your computer you are told by 'computer experts' (ie the shop and Microsoft that take your money) that you have to have it or your computer will be attacked by viruses, and so you believe it in the absence of any other information and fear these unknown viruses, and end up paying for it every year. However, if you have the strength to just let it lapse nothing serious happens. That's not to say that there aren't computer viruses around, but the chances of an ordinary household computer being attacked isn't as high as expected. So perhaps the chance of a tiny, ordinary country with no valuable resources being attacked is quite small.

I think, dinger, that the argument of paid vs conscripted military is often used, but not necessarily true. Countries don't have to have either. Costa Rica and Ecuador have disbanded their armed forces and haven't been attacked by another country.

Also, the process of total absorbtion that clunk and others have described here as part of the military training process can't be a good thing for anyone, let alone young, vulnerable people, but it is essential for training 'fighting machines' who don't get emotionally involved in what they are doing. This is exactly the type of alienation process that we all want to stop in civilian life as we feel that is fuelling street crime. If you think about it there is a very fine line between the processes and expectations of gangs and the army, but one is seen as wrong and dangerous and the other as right and institutional in keeping us safe. I don't feel safe at the thought of young, often uneducated, needy people being 'trained' to be unemotional about killing and harming people. It doesn't matter where they learn it.

[keepersdaughter]

I don't know exactly what's going on in the UK with the military and strret crime so I may be a bit out of touch here. But the military isn't a new phenominom(sp)> There has always been a military in one form or another and surely street violence can't be all blamed on the military (i don't think I've read about any of the recent excalation of knife violence being down to off duty military for example). The whole of the military, from the most basic undereducated recruit to highest ranking colonels, generals cannot all be perceived as mindless killing machines. They are men and women, sons, brothers, fathers and grandfathers. I believe they are intelligent enough to know the difference between putting their training into practise when they are in combat and not just wandering the streets looking for innocent unarmed victims to pick on, otherwise there would be all out violence and mass killing on a massive scale on a daily basis if all military members from all services were painted with this same brush. I don't believe in war, and I don't think any half way sensible person does for that matter. Unfortunately, since some human beings seek power to dominate, and control others there is a need for those people who have a certain mindset that they can step in when the need arises, to protect those unable to protect themselves against those more powerful and then they step back and lead normal lives, raise families just like everyone else. And maybe it's because of those people that the people of the UK and other countries are free to speak out against their governments, wear what they want, dress how they want, marry - or not - as they want.

[souter girl]

Hear, hear KD and thank you for your reasoned and calm comments Clunk. Let's not confuse the few "rotten apples" i.e. drunken squaddies, ( who are no different from drunken football hooligans - so should we damn all sports fans?) with the very brave men and women who serve in our forces. Yes, some do get into trouble with the law after they leave the forces and that is perhaps a reflection of the after care or lack of it supplied by the army/navy etc or perhaps because they find it hard to fit into a less structured society. I also think we should not generalise about their social background. They are not all from deprived homes - what about the officers? the skilled tradesmen? the engineers? the medical and nursing officers? Not forgetting the second in line to the throne.There are some very dodgy reports about some of our police force - does that make their uniform suspect? My point was that many nations are proud of their servicemen and do not treat them as pariahs. Further, if any hotel keeper were to exercise the same discrimination against any ethnic minority he or she would be breaking the law.

[dinger]

I can still remember the last war running to a shelter or under the stairs while bombs were dropping .I feel we have to have an armed forces and am grateful for the protection it gives us.

[jazzactivist]

I think that it is really important to explore beyond the surface of how the armed forces and war appear from media reports. It is just a profit generating industry like any other, and it isn't people who are being protected but wealth and resources, like oil. War costs lots of money to produce and the countries that are invaded on supposedly humanitarian grounds have to pay for that military intervention, whether they wanted it or not, and that repayment arrangement is one of the first agreements made with any new 'democratic' government. Afghanistan and Iraq will be paying the US and UK for decades to come, with a combination of money and oil.

I don't think that those of us arguing against war and the hero worship of the armed forces are saying that all of them are just mindless, dangerous thugs, but that the system inherent in the armed forces, the training and the type of unthinking obedience that this produces, isn't healthy for anyone, and isn't particulary protective, as at all levels they just learn to do what they are told. Think of how many times "I was just following orders" is trotted out to excuse atrocities. If someone wants to be an engineer or nurse there are plenty of other ways to do this than in the armed forces.

With regard to violence. Having a criminal record, even a serious one, doesn't preclude someone from joining the armed forces, whereas it would for most jobs working with vulnerable people. Of course, people in the armed forces have families and friends, but is it exactly the same as for civilian families and friendships? There is a lot of evidence in military families of unnecessarily strict order being imposed on the rest of the family both by the family member involved and by the military itself. Also friendships tend to be with other military families. There is also high, recorded, incidence of domestic violence and alcohol misuse. It is inevitable that someone who regularly sees and may sometimes carry out extreme violence and has to learn to switch off their emotions and deny their normal reaction ends up disfunctional in some way. It is this unquestioning and unthinking robotic obedience that is expected of soldiers that is worrying and, combined with training in how to behave towards any enemy and in the use of fire arms, it can be a lethal combination.

My view is that knowing what we all now know about human behaviour, and a range of ideas for how to create a more positive and connected world, isn't it time to reconsider whether countries really need our armed forces?

[sandybay]

Just to say Souter Girl, there is a big difference between the men who joined the war effort or were conscripted into the forces for World War Two to fight against Facism and some of the characters who enlist voluntarily today.

My use of sociopathic is a common one in the mental health field to descibe those who fail to have empathy, and may have issues with power, violence [implicit threats against others as well as explicit] etc.