Typical phoney apology from our government. With "hindsight" Des Browne, the
Defence Secretary, can now see that it was a mistake to let the Navy team
sell its stories to the media. No, it has nothing to do with hindsight, it
was always obvious that it would anger people. For a start, it would anger
the journalists and editors who failed to buy any of the stories and
therefore lost sales to the Sun and the Mirror.

On the plus side, it helped to counter the Iranian propaganda and make it
clear that our people had smiled and written confessions only under duress.

On the minus side....
a) None of the team were asked about the nature of any surveillance of
Iranian ships or territory that they might have been engaged in, so we must
assume that the MoD prevented such a line of questioning
b) They made a lot of fuss about being blindfolded, interrogated and hearing
the sound of guns being cocked, and poor old Faye (the only woman) and
Arthur (youngest member of the team, with facial resemblance to Mr Bean)
admitted to crying rather more than is usually seemly for members of our
armed forces, and Arthur found it particularly hurtful that his I-pod was
confiscated. What is your major malfunction, Private Pile?
c) The emphasis on Faye's husband and child back at home and what they must
be feeling, was idiotic and inappropriate. It left one with the impression
that women who serve in the armed forces are certainly not to be regarded as
equal members of the team, merely as token women who are there to satisfy
equal opportunities policies, whose first reaction on being captured by the
enemy is likely to be to break down in tears and assume that they are about
to be raped. If in fact it is a convention among foreign soldiers that they
will make a point of raping female prisoners, then plainly we must recruit
only women soldiers who regard rape as an acceptable occupational hazard
just as male soldiers accept that they will get beaten up if they get
captured.

> Typical phoney apology from our government. With "hindsight" Des Browne, the
> Defence Secretary, can now see that it was a mistake to let the Navy team
> sell its stories to the media.

IANAL

I would have thought operations such as this would be covered under
the official secrets act anyway, so shouldn't be up for discussion
whether it can be spoken about.

On 11 Apr, 18:38, "The Todal" <deadmail> wrote:
[..]
> be feeling, was idiotic and inappropriate. It left one with the impression
> that women who serve in the armed forces are certainly not to be regarded as
> equal members of the team, merely as token women who are there to satisfy
> equal opportunities policies, whose first reaction on being captured by the
> enemy is likely to be to break down in tears and assume that they are about
> to be raped. If in fact it is a convention among foreign soldiers that they
> will make a point of raping female prisoners, then plainly we must recruit
> only women soldiers who regard rape as an acceptable occupational hazard
> just as male soldiers accept that they will get beaten up if they get
> captured.

I am quite surprised by how readily Des Browne stepped up to the plate
to accept responsibility for this one - most unlike a labour
politician. Makes you almost wonder that the decision to let them
sell the story was authorised from the top for propaganda purposes
(not me of course, cos I was already thinking that anyway)

"The Todal" <deadmailbox> wrote in message
news:rou1
[..]
> must be feeling, was idiotic and inappropriate. It left one with the
> impression that women who serve in the armed forces are certainly not to
> be regarded as equal members of the team, merely as token women who are
> there to satisfy equal opportunities policies, whose first reaction on
> being captured by the enemy is likely to be to break down in tears and
> assume that they are about to be raped. If in fact it is a convention
> among foreign soldiers that they will make a point of raping female
> prisoners, then plainly we must recruit only women soldiers who regard
> rape as an acceptable occupational hazard just as male soldiers accept
> that they will get beaten up if they get captured.


They weren;t captured by enemy forces. Sure the mad-hatters in Washington
are searching round for justification to launch military action & I suppose
Iran will then become our enemy too dimply because when Bush comes to shove
the mad-hatters will demand to know whether we're with them or against them
( once again).

The publicity stunt was nothing more than political propaganda that's
back-fired on the Government. The attempt to blame it on a decision made by
the Navy, without reference to the MoD, is pure farce.

The service personnel should have said (& been ordered to say) absolutely
nothing, not least because of our forces operating around Iran now, & if
there should be a similar incident the Iranians will be a damn sight less
likely to believe or trust that HMG will show anything other than contempt
should they release the personnel.

Joe Lee

In message <1176326703.058799.117100>, Tommo
<sxt2000> writes

>I am quite surprised by how readily Des Browne stepped up to the plate
>to accept responsibility for this one

So, tell me just what 'accepting responsibility' means in this context.

In normal life, if you accept responsibility, you take personal action
to make retribution to anyone you have harmed. So, what's Browne going
to do, practically and actually? If nothing, it's a meaningless
gesture, and actually quite typical of New Labour if you ask me..

"Tommo" <sxt2000> wrote in message
news:7100
> On 11 Apr, 18:38, "The Todal" <deadmail> wrote:
<snip>
> I am quite surprised by how readily Des Browne stepped up to the plate
> to accept responsibility for this one - most unlike a labour
> politician.

If I was a Labour Minister, I'd be ok with accepting responsibility if it
had
some benefit and no adverse consequences for me, wouldn't you?
[..]

"Norman Wells" <norman> wrote in message
news:fwru
> In message <1176326703.058799.117100>, Tommo
> <sxt2000> writes
>
>>I am quite surprised by how readily Des Browne stepped up to the plate
>>to accept responsibility for this one
>
> So, tell me just what 'accepting responsibility' means in this context.

It means he's an excellent party apparachnik, & will have furthered his
political career by drawing criticism away from the dear leader - oh sorry,
I mean Tony.

> In normal life, if you accept responsibility, you take personal action to
> make retribution to anyone you have harmed. So, what's Browne going to
> do, practically and actually? If nothing, it's a meaningless gesture, and
> actually quite typical of New Labour if you ask me..

And the difference between them & The New Tory (hug a hoodie) Party is what
wxactly :) ?

Joe Lee
[..]