NationStates Jolt Archive

A soldier wounded in Afghanistan went to a city for a funeral of one of his comrades who was killed fighting in the war. It was late at night and he went to a hotel to get a room and was told, "It is our policy not to rent rooms to people in the military." So, he spent the night sleeping in his small car with a cast on his arm.

That is absolutely disgusting and wrong. People should not be treated like this especially one who is willing to risk his life so that other people can be free.

Oh, this didn't happen in the US, it happened in the UK.

Well, the hotel finally issued an apology after they were swamped with telephone calls from angry people. Here is what the soldier's mother said;

"Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, has now returned to Afghanistan, but his mother, Gaynor Stringer, from Criccieth, North Wales, told The Times that she was still furious about the incident.

“I’m very, very angry. It’s discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin.”

She added: “In America, they treat soldiers as heroes. We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering. Here, soldiers can’t even get a bed for the night.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4674411.ece

That is shameful.

Hopefully the hotel will go out of business.

Inexcusable way to treat a soldier.

Love the poll by the way; can't wait to see some of the replies that will get. ;)

That place needs to be burned to the ground.

"The hotel management has always had an open door policy to all its visitors and guests, including members of the military and Armed Forces.”
The receptionist on duty at the time had made a mistake, the statement added.
Corporal Tomos Stringer, 24, had been told by hotel staff that it was company policy not to accept members of the Armed Forces as guests.
So, either:
A. The company is lying and just changing it's policy now to avoid any further problems,
OR
B. The clerk should be fired for this.

This is sick. The man had to sleep in a car, because he served his country?

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

That doesn't make it ethically responsible, but it does make it not illegal (as far as I know). What happened was exactly what should have happened. People heard about it and raised a well-deserved fuss. "Burned to the ground" is where I draw the line.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!

I seem to recall the same people who are infuriated over this also being the same people who constantly cry foul whenever the government dictates what private industry can and cant do.

thats an odd policy. i wonder how they justified it.

So, either:

This is sick. The man had to sleep in a car, because he served his country?

So the government should dictate who they can and cant serve? Some libertarian you are.

I tend to agree with what the mother says: it's discrimination. However, I also would like to know exactly why the hotel refuses to rent room to military personnel. I'm under the impression there's a specific reason for it.

Burning places to the ground is ok when you favour lynch mob solutions. There are better, more civilized responses possible to this specific incident.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!

After being wounded in the service of his country, he desrved better service.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!

Depends on the car, really.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!
A member of the armed forces was refused service for his choice of profession, which was not illegal, nor was he demanding service for free, while wounded, and waiting for his friend's funeral. I find that sick, and wrong.

A member of the armed forces was refused service for his choice of profession, which was not illegal, nor was he demanding service for free, while wounded, and waiting for his friend's funeral. I find that sick, and wrong.

And I want one of you so called free market proponents to tell me if you think the government should step in and tell a private industry who they can and cannot serve.

After being wounded in the service of his country, he desrved better service.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

So the government should dictate who they can and cant serve? Some libertarian you are.

And once again KOL, you use words that I never said, nor implied. I said he should be fired, as someone either that incompetent, or that rude, should not be serving at a hotel. i didn't say "We should get the government to fire him!" I was merely stating my personal opinion on what SHOULD happen in a just world. I doubt that this will happen, but that's life. Thank you once again KOL, for twisting my words around for a poor sarcastic remark.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!

Would you like to sleep in your car because you were discriminated against?

I tend to agree with what the mother says: it's discrimination. However, I also would like to know exactly why the hotel refuses to rent room to military personnel. I'm under the impression there's a specific reason for it.

Burning places to the ground is ok when you favour lynch mob solutions. There are better, more civilized responses possible to this specific incident.

It worked a thousand years ago, it works today. Civilized? What a load of crap. Humans are not "civilized". We are agressive, violent, selfish creatures. Civilized is a term used originaly used to deonize people we wanted to conquer.

And I want one of you so called free market proponents to tell me if you think the government should step in and tell a private industry who they can and cannot serve.
And yet again, you twist my words. I said it was sick and wrong. Libertarians have morals too, and can be disgusted at things and think that they're wrong WITHOUT saying the government should enforce their personal beliefs.:eek2:

That is sad and disgusting.

And once again KOL, you use words that I never said, nor implied. I said he should be fired, as someone either that incompetent, or that rude, should not be serving at a hotel. i didn't say "We should get the government to fire him!" I was merely stating my personal opinion on what SHOULD happen in a just world. I doubt that this will happen, but that's life. Thank you once again KOL, for twisting my words around for a poor sarcastic remark.

In the event it was hotel policy however, should he still be fired? For doing his job?


I want to know, and you have yet to answer (nor has Celt), if it is hotel policy, should the government step in and force them to reverse this.

its Britain your more likely to get bottled than have someone buy you a drink

That place needs to be burned to the ground.

thats the first thought that popped into my head really

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

Return of the Waffen-SS, rite?

You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

I can't even justify a reponse to that stupity.

That place needs to be burned to the ground.

Is'nt inciting violence illegal in your country?

Yes, it was disgusting to treat him that way, not because he was a soldeir, but because he was a human being. But personally, I think arson is worse.

In the event it was hotel policy however, should he still be fired? For doing his job?

No, if it was hotel policy, he shouldn't be punished. However, if it was hotel policy, see below. However, if the company is telling the truth, the man should be fired.
I want to know, and you have yet to answer (nor has Celt), if it is hotel policy, should the government step in and force them to reverse this.
If it is hotel policy, I won't be using that hotel until it reverses said policy. However, the government shouldn't step in. Of course, this is where the media can step in, as it obviously has, and spread the word, where many people will be disgusted, or at least offended that something like this has happened, and that hotel will undoubtedly lose plenty of potential customers.

I seem to recall the same people who are infuriated over this also being the same people who constantly cry foul whenever the government dictates what private industry can and cant do.

and who here are calling for the GOVERNMENT to dictate private industry internal policies?

yes, it's sad and disgusting. however it sounds less than a company policy and more of a mistake from that one hotel.

and apparently, the hotel's business is going to suffer from that mistake.

Return of the Waffen-SS, rite?

No so far only about 100,000 people have died for Shrubya's ego. Four thousand Americans, god knows how many innocent Iraqis. That's what's disgusting and wrong. A soldier being refused service is just a minor item in the news, not worthy of the fucking circle jerk going on here.

seems like a reasonable policy to me

And I want one of you so called free market proponents to tell me if you think the government should step in and tell a private industry who they can and cannot serve.

In the US, they do. They are called anti-discrimination laws.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

Calling his actions murder is not accurate use of legal terminology, and in fact seems to be on the side of hyperbolly. Otherwise, I agree.

You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

For who??

Civilized? What a load of crap. Humans are not "civilized". We are agressive, violent, selfish creatures.

That's why we've got laws and the state's monopoly of violence, in order to keep those destructive sentiments under control. Humans are capable of not only identifying their negative sides, as you so aptly proved, but are also able to keep them in check for the greater good. As far as I understand the system, it's supposed to be mutually beneficial.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

First time I heard the PM of the UK called "Dear Leader." Or did you not read the op and ass-u-me it happened in the US?

How peculiar... I think in some towns in the UK businesses are asked not to serve soldiers in uniform, because soldier is likely to be awol from their barracks and generally causing trouble.

Seems like a misapplication of that policy... poor guy. :(

Calling his actions murder is not accurate use of legal terminology, and in fact seems to be on the side of hyperbolly. Otherwise, I agree.

Well a war based on lies in defiance of UN authority. Seems like murder might be a bit strong of a word, but it is fairly accurate.

A company has the full right to refuse service to anyone (except blacks and gays, which is an intrusive rule, but hard to argue against). While a blanket policy to refuse it to all members of the military is stupid, it's their right. There are reasons to refuse service to a meeting of squadies (goodbye furniture, goodbye other customers), but not to a single guy. Unless the owner has been particularly offended by the military in the past.

First time I heard the PM of the UK called "Dear Leader." Or did you not read the op and ass-u-me it happened in the US?

Well unless Blair invaded some country I'm not aware of the only military action they've been involved in of late has been while serving as lap dog for Bush.

Just finished reading the article
A personal letter received by Mr Williams, MP for Caernarfon, went further, saying that the hotel had recently experienced “some rather serious incidents” involving soldiers from the nearby barracks.
It's sensible and standard hotel policy that's been misapplied. The problem is it's not meant to be applied to members of the armed forces who are on leave.

seems like a reasonable policy to me
ARMED customers yes.

Members of the ARMED FORCES however... nah, I don't see that as reasonable.

First time I heard the PM of the UK called "Dear Leader." Or did you not read the op and ass-u-me it happened in the US? Awww... I wanted to see if he actually read the article.

and who here are calling for the GOVERNMENT to dictate private industry internal policies?

No one this time. However, many of the people outraged over this are the same people who give the standard righty answer about "a company (should) having the right to refuse service to anyone, not the role of the government blah blah blah" when some business or person refuses service to a brown person or gay guy, but once its a solider, HO BOY NOW WE GOT PROBLEMS!


I just wanted to see how deep the hypocrisy went.

While the Hotel does have the right to refuse service, it can also lose customers, lose business, and go out of business. The fact that the people are raising Hell over this instead of Government stepping in is what needs to be done.

No so far only about 100,000 people have died for Shrubya's ego. Four thousand Americans, god knows how many innocent Iraqis. That's what's disgusting and wrong. A soldier being refused service is just a minor item in the news, not worthy of the fucking circle jerk going on here.

So you empathise with the plight of the soldiers by calling them the modern equivalent of the Schutzstaffel. Melodrama much?

Well a war based on lies in defiance of UN authority. Seems like murder might be a bit strong of a word, but it is fairly accurate.

It was Afghanistan, not Iraq that he served in.

Listen very carefully: they are not the same war. The injustices of one do not automatically carry over to the other. He did not go against UN authority, and unless you are a 911 truther, he did not fight in a war based on lies.

You cannot simply cut-and-paste slogans and buzz words from one argument to use in the next.

Look, we all get lazy. We all skim through an OP without properly reading it from time to time. But this is just silly.

Just finished reading the article

It's sensible and standard hotel policy that's been misapplied. The problem is it's not meant to be applied to members of the armed forces who are on leave.

Mmm, wildly out of proportion reaction to an imagined slight. Gee, that's shocking.

No so far only about 100,000 people have died for Shrubya's ego. Four thousand Americans, god knows how many innocent Iraqis. That's what's disgusting and wrong. A soldier being refused service is just a minor item in the news, not worthy of the fucking circle jerk going on here.

How about going back to the op and reading it? This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Bush, Iraq, or the United States. So please don't try to hijack the thread.

So you empathise with the plight of the soldiers by calling them the modern equivalent of the Schutzstaffel. Melodrama much?

Did you read any of my posts? I'm just so curious.

Did you read any of my posts? I'm just so curious.

Aye, I did. And I object to the sweeping generalization that soldiers are murderers based on...what, exactly?

How peculiar... I think in some towns in the UK businesses are asked not to serve soldiers in uniform, because soldier is likely to be awol from their barracks and generally causing trouble.

Seems like a misapplication of that policy... poor guy. :(

Blanket policies like that are often stupid and unjust, because they judge people by what group their a part of while ignoring the complications arising from individual differences. Like zero tollerance policies, they're a way for authorities to turn off their brains, avoid judging situations on a case-by-case basis, and duck personal responsibillity.

Volunteering to be a soldier does not mean that people can no longer be assholes to you, nor does getting injured in the course of being a soldier.

How about going back to the op and reading it? This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Bush, Iraq, or the United States. So please don't try to hijack the thread.

Except the British followed us into Iraq, and the war is less popular there then it is here if you can imagine that.

Mmm, wildly out of proportion reaction to an imagined slight. Gee, that's shocking.

So it's ok to deny service to those damned wetbacks because they have sold drugs from my room? Aweful slippery slope there.

To deny service, there should be an actual, individual reason. And yes, that should be law.

Except the British followed us into Iraq, and the war is less popular there then it is here if you can imagine that.

Except the soldier in question was stationed in Afghanistan.

Except the soldier in question was stationed in Afghanistan.

Indeed, however the British hatred of the war would spill over onto any solider regardless of where they were stationed. Much like it would here.

To deny service, there should be an actual, individual reason. And yes, that should be law.

Then it should be law that individuals are forbidden to engage in business. After all, the gov't knows how to do it better anyway, right?

Volunteering to be a soldier does not mean that people can no longer be assholes to you, nor does getting injured in the course of being a soldier.

Indeed.

This whole thread is in large part rediculous and simple minded. On the one hand we have people acting like this man is inherently better than the rest of us because he's a soldier who fought and was wounded in Afghanistan. On the other hand we have people attacking him for no other reason than because he was a soldier, with no regard to the facts of the story. The problem here has nothing to do with him being a soldeir. it has to do with people making hasty asumptions and knee-jerk emotional responses without looking at the individual and the case in question.

ARMED customers yes.

Members of the ARMED FORCES however... nah, I don't see that as reasonable.

on top of my general policy that we as a culture should do everything we can to make military service something shameful to be hidden when not outright avoided, military guys are like the way less polite and pleasant version of drunken frat boys. like rockstars without the cash to pay for their damages.

on top of my general policy that we as a culture should do everything we can to make military service something shameful to be hidden when not outright avoided, military guys are like the way less polite and pleasant version of drunken frat boys. like rockstars without the cash to pay for their damages.

Objection. No one is less pleasant then frat boys, drunk or otherwise.

A soldier wounded in Afghanistan went to a city for a funeral of one of his comrades who was killed fighting in the war. It was late at night and he went to a hotel to get a room and was told, "It is our policy not to rent rooms to people in the military." So, he spent the night sleeping in his small car with a cast on his arm.

That is absolutely disgusting and wrong. People should not be treated like this especially one who is willing to risk his life so that other people can be free.

Oh, this didn't happen in the US, it happened in the UK.

Well, the hotel finally issued an apology after they were swamped with telephone calls from angry people. Here is what the soldier's mother said;

"Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, has now returned to Afghanistan, but his mother, Gaynor Stringer, from Criccieth, North Wales, told The Times that she was still furious about the incident.

“I’m very, very angry. It’s discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin.”

She added: “In America, they treat soldiers as heroes. We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering. Here, soldiers can’t even get a bed for the night.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4674411.ece

Having known squaddies, it's not unreasonable to bar them from a venue. Having lived near Army bases in the UK, it's not unreasonable to bar them from a venue.

Under UK law, it's not unreasonable to bar them from a venue.


It's a joke that the person in the article claims the discrimination to be some kind of parallel to racism. You can choose to be a soldier or no, you don't get to choose which colour, sex, or gender orientation yuo're going to have.

Lots of places will refuse service if they think you're a whore - but that's just someone doing 'their job'. Why plead special exception for someone who gets paid to kill people?

on top of my general policy that we as a culture should do everything we can to make military service something shameful to be hidden

Why?
.

Volunteering to be a soldier does not mean that people can no longer be assholes to you, nor does getting injured in the course of being a soldier.

no, but it means that you have the skills needed to beat them to a pulp, which I fully support if the reason for said assholery was military service.

Rolling squid;13987460']no, but it means that you have the skills needed to beat them to a pulp, which I fully support if the reason for said assholery was military service.

And that little gem is as good a reason as you're going to get, for barring squaddies.

Blanket policies like that are often stupid and unjust, because they judge people by what group their a part of while ignoring the complications arising from individual differences. Like zero tollerance policies, they're a way for authorities to turn off their brains, avoid judging situations on a case-by-case basis, and duck personal responsibillity.If I remember correctly then policies like this are endorsed by the officers in charge of local barracks. Occasionally soldiers are given leave to visit the local town for a break (and do so in army clothing), but they're not meant to stay the night. Therefore, I see it as perfectly reasonable for towns with local barracks to apply blanket policies like this to soldiers in uniform. If on leave for longer soldiers are allowed to take away their personal belongs, and should know not to go wandering in army uniform.

That way the policy only captures those who aren't meant to be there. But in this case the receptionist was poorly trained and misapplied the policy.

on top of my general policy that we as a culture should do everything we can to make military service something shameful to be hidden when not outright avoided, military guys are like the way less polite and pleasant version of drunken frat boys. like rockstars without the cash to pay for their damages.

While a lot of members of armed forces may have psychological problems as a result of their training and experinces, that is an unfair genrealization which you have not provided evidence to support.

As for weather millitary service is or should be inherently shameful, I think it's nessesity is unfortunate and something to be avoided, but their are those rare times when taking up arms is nessisary, and the experience of going to war is horrible enough without heaping abuse on those who have undergone it.

If I remember correctly then policies like this are endorsed by the officers in charge of local barracks. Occasionally soldiers are given leave to visit the local town for a break (and do so in army clothing), but they're not meant to stay the night. Therefore, I see it as perfectly reasonable for towns with local barracks to apply blanket policies like this to soldiers in uniform. If on leave for longer soldiers are allowed to take away their personal belongs, and should know not to go wandering in army uniform.

That way the policy only captures those who aren't meant to be there. But in this case the receptionist was poorly trained and misapplied the policy.

That sounds reasonable enough. It also casts this whole case in a different light, one of simple miscomunication as oposed to bigotry. It really makes a lot of the posts here much ado about nothing if that was the case.

How peculiar... I think in some towns in the UK businesses are asked not to serve soldiers in uniform, because soldier is likely to be awol from their barracks and generally causing trouble.

dates from the days of the IRA I do believe but this is the only circumstance where I have seen it happen (especially as that rule is now over and is enforced with ID card check)

on top of my general policy that we as a culture should do everything we can to make military service something shameful to be hidden when not outright avoided, military guys are like the way less polite and pleasant version of drunken frat boys. like rockstars without the cash to pay for their damages.

and civies are scum whose only care in life is to kick in peoples bins and smoke pot all day

oh I'm sorry I just generalized a whole section of population silly me:rolleyes:

Lots of places will refuse service if they think you're a whore - but that's just someone doing 'their job'. Why plead special exception for someone who gets paid to kill people?

being a whore is illegal silly

If on leave for longer soldiers are allowed to take away their personal belongs, and should know not to go wandering in army uniform.

Cpl Stringer, who was not in uniform, presented his army warrant card when asked by the hotel for proof of identity.

ehem...

Rolling squid;13987460']no, but it means that you have the skills needed to beat them to a pulp, which I fully support if the reason for said assholery was military service.

Enjoy your jail time for assault and serving only to make a ban on soldiers seem more reasonable.

Enjoy your jail time for assault and serving only to make a ban on soldiers seem more reasonable.

Arresting a soldier would be disgusting and wrong. They deserve special treatment after all.

No one this time. However, many of the people outraged over this are the same people who give the standard righty answer about "a company (should) having the right to refuse service to anyone, not the role of the government blah blah blah" when some business or person refuses service to a brown person or gay guy, but once its a solider, HO BOY NOW WE GOT PROBLEMS!

I just wanted to see how deep the hypocrisy went.
ah... carry on then. :wink:

Arresting a soldier would be disgusting and wrong. They deserve special treatment after all.

they do get special treatment, even their own police...well special is not always good :tongue:

(hence why certain sections of society like to pick fights with soldiers)

I am both shocked and apalled that nobody's complained about the poll yet! You're losing your touch, NSG!

Oh, boo-hoo. Honestly people, cast or no cast, sleeping in your car is not something worth BURNING THEM TO THE GROUND!1!11!!!1one!!1! over.

"The hotel management has always had an open door policy to all its visitors and guests, including members of the military and armed forces, and will continue to do so," the statement said. "On this particular occasion there was a mistake made by a duty receptionist and the hotel management sincerely apologizes for that mistake."

In a letter of explanation to a member of Parliament who inquired about the incident, a hotel official said the hotel had "experienced some rather serious incidents" involving military personnel. He said desk clerks had been told to be "cautious" about renting rooms to soldiers.

There. The hotel apologized. Can we get over it already, or perhaps do we need a pogrom to burn all the PC commie terrorist Muslim anti-military hippie racist bigoted discriminating anarchist assholes over it?

Why?

because militarism is a bad thing - it leads to an easy acceptance of a whole host of really terrible, inherently anti-democratic shit.

There. The hotel apologized. Can we get over it already, or perhaps do we need a pogrom to burn all the PC commie terrorist Muslim anti-military hippie racist bigoted discriminating anarchist assholes over it?

sounds good. who wants to create it? :p

Oh, boo-hoo. Honestly people, cast or no cast, sleeping in your car is not something worth BURNING THEM TO THE GROUND!1!11!!!1one!!1! over.

well it has been awhile since bonfire night :wink:

There. The hotel apologized. Can we get over it already, or perhaps do we need a pogrom to burn all the PC commie terrorist Muslim anti-military hippie racist bigoted discriminating anarchist assholes over it?

or maybe this isn't the first time such things have happened in the UK and its a serious problem?

because militarism is a bad thing - it leads to an easy acceptance of a whole host of really terrible, inherently anti-democratic shit.

so in order to protect what our society stands for we have to stop treating people fairly? hmm

Oh, boo-hoo. Honestly people, cast or no cast, sleeping in your car is not something worth BURNING THEM TO THE GROUND!1!11!!!1one!!1! over.



There. The hotel apologized. Can we get over it already, or perhaps do we need a pogrom to burn all the PC commie terrorist Muslim anti-military hippie racist bigoted discriminating anarchist assholes over it?

Why not! We can make smores while they PC commie terroist Musilm anti-military hippie racist bigoted discriminating anarchist assholes are burning!

Yay!

*Grabs lighter and heads to the bonfire*

or maybe this isn't the first time such things have happened in the UK and its a serious problem?

A serious problem?

Do, support this claim. I'm interested in what you consider to be a 'serious problem' too.

because militarism is a bad thing - it leads to an easy acceptance of a whole host of really terrible, inherently anti-democratic shit.

It is entirely possible for people to have a healthy respect for soldiers without being overly militaristic. Extremism of any sort is never a good thing; moderation is key.

being a whore is illegal silly

No, it isn't.

In the UK, obtaining money for sexual services rendered is not a crime.

Soliciting is. Pimping is. Running a brothel is. But the actual 'fucking for money' is kosher.

they do get special treatment, even their own police...well special is not always good :tongue:

(hence why certain sections of society like to pick fights with soldiers)

Don't make it sound so onesided. Anyone who has ever been near Catterick, for example, knows that squaddies go out looking for cops (or whoever else is nearest) to fight.

Is this place in the middle of nowhere such that he can't go somewhere, pop into the bathroom, change out of his uniform and go back to the front desk claiming to have a twin in the military?

Or drive down the street to another hotel/inn/bed and breakfast?


...or perhaps the clerk was just being a dick/playing a very bad joke that got taken seriously.

Is this place in the middle of nowhere such that he can't go somewhere, pop into the bathroom, change out of his uniform and go back to the front desk claiming to have a twin in the military?

Or drive down the street to another hotel/inn/bed and breakfast?

It's Woking. He could certainly have found some other place... although he may have left it sufficiently late that most might not even try to admit him.

(A quick yahoo search suggests there are 6 hotels IN Woking. I didn't check for B&B or hostels. I did notice, however, that the hotel in question is phenomenally cheap).

this sums it all up
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it's “Saviour of 'is country” when the guns begin to shoot.

It's Woking. He could certainly have found some other place... although he may have left it sufficiently late that most might not even try to admit him.

(A quick yahoo search suggests there are 6 hotels IN Woking. I didn't check for B&B or hostels. I did notice, however, that the hotel in question is phenomenally cheap).
So he didn't have to stay in his car. He could have gone somewhere else (the difference between a cheap hotel and an expensive hotel when it's just one night isn't huge).

I'm sorry, but why is it that people who normally bitch about how businesses should allow smoking and all manner of discrimination if the free market allows it are getting all bitchy about this? I mean, it's dick-ish, but it's not like this was the only place around and he had no alternatives.

While a lot of members of armed forces may have psychological problems as a result of their training and experinces, that is an unfair genrealization which you have not provided evidence to support.

i'm not talking about the well-known psychological traumas associated with military experiences, but rather of the even better known "party hard" lifestyle of a disproportionate percentage of people in the armed services. shit, the very hotel in question had apparently had repeated problems with it.

As for weather millitary service is or should be inherently shameful, I think it's nessesity is unfortunate and something to be avoided, but their are those rare times when taking up arms is nessisary, and the experience of going to war is horrible enough without heaping abuse on those who have undergone it.

oh, of course it is sometimes necessary. but necessity itself is not a reason to celebrate something. and it is especially not a reason to celebrate it during the times it isn't actually necessary. some things should be marginalized.

think of it as a properly aimed and actually-good-for-society version of "don't ask, don't tell".

So he didn't have to stay in his car. He could have gone somewhere else (the difference between a cheap hotel and an expensive hotel when it's just one night isn't huge).

I'm sorry, but why is it that people who normally bitch about how businesses should allow smoking and all manner of discrimination if the free market allows it are getting all bitchy about this? I mean, it's dick-ish, but it's not like this was the only place around and he had no alternatives.

It's Woking - which is in Surrey. He's not THAT far out of London. If he REALLY needed a place to stay, he could have found one.

I'm inclined to think there is more to the situation than is being mentioned. Specifically, I think the poor lil soldier in this story, was probably smashed two-thirds of the way out of his gourd when he arrived, having tipped back a few jars in memory of his old mate.

I think that that would explain why he got turned away - if squaddies are trouble, DRUNK squaddies are even more so. I think that explains why he made it as far as his car, and no further.

Given the location, it's hard to believe he REALLY couldn't have found somewhere to stay if he needed it.

But - yes - I agree. Those who normally come out all in favour of 'let the buyer beware' are shitting their diapers now it's a soldier getting 'bewared'.

ehem...I did say it was a misapplication of the policy and that I felt sorry for the guy. :tongue:

I do feel bad for the guy, he should have at least been able to stay in a room.
It wasn't right of the hotel at all, not saying we should burn down the place though... >.>

It is entirely possible for people to have a healthy respect for soldiers without being overly militaristic.

what exactly constitutes a healthy respect for soldiers?

do you have any examples from real life of this being pulled off?

what exactly constitutes a healthy respect for soldiers?

do you have any examples from real life of this being pulled off?

I'd say not preventing them from sleeping in your hotel would be at least part of "healthy respect for soldiers."

I think it would be pretty douchey to deny anyone lodging unless you honestly thought they were going to damage the property.

The article doesn't explain why they refuse military types:
Is it because "I don't agree with the war therefore soldiers are of a lower class"
or because "Last time I rented out a room to a soldier they had a mass drunken orgy which involved the law turning up and me almost losing my registration and therefore soldiers are of a lower class"

The article doesn't explain why they refuse military types:
Is it because "I don't agree with the war therefore soldiers are of a lower class"
or because "Last time I rented out a room to a soldier they had a mass drunken orgy which involved the law turning up and me almost losing my registration and therefore soldiers are of a lower class"

The second option is basically stereotyping all soldiers as drunken assholes, and so is sort of an invalid argument. Regardless of the reason, it's just wrong to deny entrance to someone on the sole basis of their being a soldier.

There is every reason to be suspicious of the military, but that suspicion need not necessarily translate into a denial of service. The only question that matters is "would servicing him potentially endanger the staff or other clients of the hotel"; the answer to that dictates whether or not you let him in. If he's no threat to anyone else, you can bill him or his regiment for any damages to your property he causes, and if he doesn't do any harm, then he's a fine, paying and welcome customer.

what exactly constitutes a healthy respect for soldiers?

do you have any examples from real life of this being pulled off?

Well, there's the whole "treat them as you would any other person" thing.

I think it would be pretty douchey to deny anyone lodging unless you honestly thought they were going to damage the property.

Or break the law in ways that would get you in trouble. Any other reason is absolutely absurd, and morally repulsive.

Well, there's the whole "treat them as you would any other person" thing.

and that is what i propose doing, so long as the military bit is kept quiet. its not like i want to brand people or anything.

Or break the law in ways that would get you in trouble.
How could they do that? Surely the hotel can't be held responsible for the actions of its clientele?

The second option is basically stereotyping all soldiers as drunken assholes, and so is sort of an invalid argument. Regardless of the reason, it's just wrong to deny entrance to someone on the sole basis of their being a soldier.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between drunken soldiers and drunken civilians; there's a chance that anyone who's had too much to drink will start trouble, and that chance is likely to increase when they're in groups.

How could they do that? Surely the hotel can't be held responsible for the actions of its clientele?

Sure it could. There are any number of criminal activities one is required, under law to report if one is aware of them...including but not limited to child abuse (depending on the jurisdiction) etc.

How could they do that? Surely the hotel can't be held responsible for the actions of its clientele?

If you had foreknowledge of their intent to commit a crime, it's possible that you could be charged as an accessory to a crime.

Sure it could. There are any number of criminal activities one is required, under law to report if one is aware of them...including but not limited to child abuse (depending on the jurisdiction) etc.
Then the hotel could just report them if they find out about them? Co-operate fully with the police investigation?

The small "d" democrat in me says that it is wrong to deny someone lodging in a hotel because they are from the military.

That voice also tells me it is wrong to push people down a queue for the benefit of someone from the military.

The pacifist in me says, "Feck em. If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to become the tool of politicians, they deserve what they get."

I think it would be pretty douchey to deny anyone lodging unless you honestly thought they were going to damage the property.

There are two different arguments there, though... what should be done, and what is the law.

The law allows you to refuse anyone, provided you are not discriminating on certain preset delineations. I don't know, for sure, but I don't think the military is covered by any of them, per se.

So - from a legalistic viewpoint, there's no reason why they shouldn't refuse service, if they choose.

'Morally'? Should they accomodate the soldier? I'd like to think everyone should be able to get accomodation. But that doesn't mean THAT hotel should have had to give it to him...

If you had foreknowledge of their intent to commit a crime, it's possible that you could be charged as an accessory to a crime.
Then let them in and call the police while they're inside the hotel if you know about it, or call the police after you do find out about it.

Then the hotel could just report them if they find out about them? Co-operate fully with the police investigation?

Sure, but I still think it's a valid reason to refuse service. You suspect someone is going to sell stolen property out of the lodging they are seeking to rent from you...probably best to send them on their way.

The small "d" democrat in me says that it is wrong to deny someone lodging in a hotel because they are from the military.

That voice also tells me it is wrong to push people down a queue for the benefit of someone from the military.

The pacifist in me says, "Feck em. If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to become the tool of politicians, they deserve what they get."

Honestly, I think many politicians regard us all as tools, regardless of affiliation with or opinion of the military. The only difference is the degree of direct control government officials have over different groups within the general population.

Sure, but I still think it's a valid reason to refuse service. You suspect someone is going to sell stolen property out of the lodging they are seeking to rent from you...probably best to send them on their way.
'course, knowing exactly where they are at a given time is a great opportunity to get them cornered, right?

Honestly, I think many politicians regard us all as tools, regardless of affiliation with or opinion of the military. The only difference is the degree of direct control government officials have over different groups within the general population.

Yeah, and I suspect in many countries people join the armed forces for purely economic reasons. Maybe not in Britain, though?

There are two different arguments there, though... what should be done, and what is the law.

The law allows you to refuse anyone, provided you are not discriminating on certain preset delineations. I don't know, for sure, but I don't think the military is covered by any of them, per se. The Alberta Human Rights Code, just to pick one at random covers race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income and family status.

I'd say being a soldier falls into 'source of income'. Were I arguing the issue. Just saying. Frankly, I think the ability to limit service in the should be sharply curtailed and should be based only on bona fide reasons (such as danger to employees/property etc).

Clearly there are two arguments. You'll note I didn't bother bringing up the legal one. Thus my use of the non-legalistic term 'douchey'.

'course, knowing exactly where they are at a given time is a great opportunity to get them cornered, right?

I don't expect everyone to be a part-time member of law enforcement.

The pacifist in me says, "Feck em. If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to become the tool of politicians, they deserve what they get."
Do you not pay taxes?

The second option is basically stereotyping all soldiers as drunken assholes, and so is sort of an invalid argument. Regardless of the reason, it's just wrong to deny entrance to someone on the sole basis of their being a soldier.

Quite so. The hotelier should cop the thousands of dollars of damage they do. It is completely his fault that they are drunken.

Welcome to the real fucking world. People do have biases, and frankly, once bitten twice shy is probably one of the core ideas that runs through our brains (atleast those of us with brains).

Quite so. The hotelier should cop the thousands of dollars of damage they do. It is completely his fault that they are drunken.

Welcome to the real fucking world. People do have biases, and frankly, once bitten twice shy is probably one of the core ideas that runs through our brains (atleast those of us with brains).
Yes, what people actually do is an excellent way to discover what is morally or legally right.

Quite so. The hotelier should cop the thousands of dollars of damage they do. It is completely his fault that they are drunken.

Welcome to the real fucking world. People do have biases, and frankly, once bitten twice shy is probably one of the core ideas that runs through our brains (atleast those of us with brains).

It makes sense to deny service to someone who is clearly intoxicated. It doesn't make sense to simply assume that a class of people is likely to be intoxicated, absence evidence of such. For example...refusing service to all First Nations people because you had some bad experiences with some who were drunk.

Do you not pay taxes?

Please forgive my obtuseness but your point is?

Please forgive my obtuseness but your point is?

Aren't you funding the politicians in their immorality? At least the soldiers have managed to take a cut out of doing what the government says.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

First off, this is something that happened in the UK, not the US (unless UKians also refer to their elected leadership as "Dear Leader"). Second off, as the article states, "Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps", it sounds like he wasn't a front line soldier, but in resupply.

Yeah, and I suspect in many countries people join the armed forces for purely economic reasons. Maybe not in Britain, though?

Oh, I'm not denying that some people go into the military just for the benefits, but there are decent, honest people who sign up because they feel they owe a debt to their country and want to protect their loved ones. It bothers me when people basically say "the military and everyone in it can go to hell" just as much when governments use their military forces to do embarassingly stupid things and enforce ridiculous policies.

First off, this is something that happened in the UK, not the US (unless UKians also refer to their elected leadership as "Dear Leader"). Second off, as the article states, "Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps", it sounds like he wasn't a front line soldier, but in resupply.

The point seems to stand. He deserves no special treatment. Then again, neither do I think he deserved special sanction, not on the (few) facts.

Aren't you funding the politicians in their immorality? At least the soldiers have managed to take a cut out of doing what the government says.

You are absolutely right. When my country does something morally wrong (invading Iraq, for example, or locking up children in desert prison camps - I'm from Australia, btw), I am complicit.

All I can do, should do as a conscientious citizen, is campaign to change those decisions.

The Alberta Human Rights Code, just to pick one at random covers race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income and family status.

I'd say being a soldier falls into 'source of income'. Were I arguing the issue. Just saying. Frankly, I think the ability to limit service in the should be sharply curtailed and should be based only on bona fide reasons (such as danger to employees/property etc).

Clearly there are two arguments. You'll note I didn't bother bringing up the legal one. Thus my use of the non-legalistic term 'douchey'.

Well, I can't say for sure - since I haven't been back in the mothercountry for quite a while, but I'm pretty sure UK law would trash your shorts if you denied residence to someone BECAUSE they were a woman, black, or a lesbian... but you could totally deny the same black lesbian service for an entirely unrelated reason. And - I'm thinking you MIGHT be able to claim their job as a reason. But - I'm not sure.

Is 'douchey' not a legal term, then? :)

Oh, I'm not denying that some people go into the military just for the benefits, but there are decent, honest people who sign up because they feel they owe a debt to their country and want to protect their loved ones. It bothers me when people basically say "the military and everyone in it can go to hell" just as much when governments use their military forces to do embarassingly stupid things and enforce ridiculous policies.

But, if you thought a business was behaving improperly... wouldn't you boycott their stores?

If you believe your nation's military isn't behaving appropriately, should it not be okay to 'boycott' them?

You are absolutely right. When my country does something morally wrong (invading Iraq, for example, or locking up children in desert prison camps - I'm from Australia, btw), I am complicit.

All I can do, should do as a conscientious citizen, is campaign to change those decisions.

You can also stop paying taxes, a la Thoreau.
Seriously, though, I realize that rebellion against government corruption is not always a viable option. I just think it's unfair to criticize soldiers for being big tools of politicians when you or I are just smaller tools.

Oh, I'm not denying that some people go into the military just for the benefits, but there are decent, honest people who sign up because they feel they owe a debt to their country and want to protect their loved ones. It bothers me when people basically say "the military and everyone in it can go to hell" just as much when governments use their military forces to do embarassingly stupid things and enforce ridiculous policies.

My response doesn't directly answer your point but... Wealthy nations like the US or Britain or my own country, Australia, don't have any threats to their borders. The main purpose of a military in that case is to project power abroad. In my view, joining the military isn't a noble or conscientious act, it's merely abetting that unsavoury purpose.

But, if you thought a business was behaving improperly... wouldn't you boycott their stores?

If you believe your nation's military isn't behaving appropriately, should it not be okay to 'boycott' them?

I do not judge an individual soldier based on the actions and policies of the government; instead, I would express my dissatisfaction with government policy by voting for someone else, effectively "boycotting" those with whom I am dissatisfied.

Problem with that, though, is that I live in the US.

You can also stop paying taxes, a la Thoreau.
Seriously, though, I realize that rebellion against government corruption is not always a viable option. I just think it's unfair to criticize soldiers for being big tools of politicians when you or I are just smaller tools.

We are tools in many ways. I'm employed by a state government parliamentarian therefore I am a tool in two ways at once: to the government and to my employer. Sometimes one has to make the best decision among difficult choices.

I remember at the time of the impending Iraq invasion having arguments with a co-worker (in a former non-political job) about the justification for an invasion. After the invasion took place he said to me, "Now that the decision has been made, you are going to support the Australian soldiers, aren't you?" When I responded, "No, they are professional killers and political tools," I thought he was going to hit me for a moment. People do feel strongly about these things.

My co-workers point of view is, in my opinion, a very dangerous one. The military does not deserve our automatic respect. Militarism is dangerous.

Well, there's the whole "treat them as you would any other person" thing.

Well. that's just respect for another human being it's got nothing to do with soldiers specifically.

I do not judge an individual soldier based on the actions and policies of the government; instead, I would express my dissatisfaction with government policy by voting for someone else, effectively "boycotting" those with whom I am dissatisfied.

Problem with that, though, is that I live in the US.

How is it 'judging an individual soldier'?

If you decide to boycott Wal-Mart, does it mean you are taking a personal action against EVERY cashier, stocker, bag-handler and greeter? Or - is your gesture of objection personal in scope, but general in direction?

Why shouldn't you be allowed to employ that same technique when it is your military that is at fault?

But, if you thought a business was behaving improperly... wouldn't you boycott their stores?

If you believe your nation's military isn't behaving appropriately, should it not be okay to 'boycott' them?

Yes, but you wouldn't deny the store employees lodgings. You can boycott the military by speaking out against its leaders, voting for politicians you think will change what the military is doing, and more. I suppose you could even stop paying taxes, as I half-joked earlier, and at least have the satisfaction of knowing you're not involved.

It makes sense to deny service to someone who is clearly intoxicated. It doesn't make sense to simply assume that a class of people is likely to be intoxicated, absence evidence of such. For example...refusing service to all First Nations people because you had some bad experiences with some who were drunk.

It is the right of the business to refuse service to whoever they choose. If they decide it is not worth the finanical risk, they do not have to lodge them.

There are plenty of places around where I live that do not allow college students to have functions there anymore because they often ended up with ambulances, police and property damage.

Yes, but you wouldn't deny the store employees lodgings. You can boycott the military by speaking out against its leaders, voting for politicians you think will change what the military is doing, and more. I suppose you could even stop paying taxes, as I half-joked earlier, and at least have the satisfaction of knowing you're not involved.

Speaking out against it's leaders, and voting for an alternative are not boycotts.

Standing outside Wal-Mart with a placard isn't boycotting Wal-Mart, UNLESS you follow through, and don't shop there. Running to K-Mart for all your stuff isn't a boycott, unless you follow through and DON'T pop into Wal-Mart while you're out.

So - how do you 'boycott' the armed forces? Surely - refusing to exchange business with them is about as pure as you can get?

We are tools in many ways. I'm employed by a state government parliamentarian therefore I am a tool in two ways at once: to the government and to my employer. Sometimes one has to make the best decision among difficult choices.

I remember at the time of the impending Iraq invasion having arguments with a co-worker (in a former non-political job) about the justification for an invasion. After the invasion took place he said to me, "Now that the decision has been made, you are going to support the Australian soldiers, aren't you?" When I responded, "No, they are professional killers and political tools," I thought he was going to hit me for a moment. People do feel strongly about these things.

My co-workers point of view is, in my opinion, a very dangerous one. The military does not deserve our automatic respect. Militarism is dangerous.

I can understand that. Soldiers are hired to enforce the will of the country they serve, and they usually involves shooting dissenters. The only problem I have with this argument is that if everyone were to not be a soldier, there would be no military at all. While I don't think the military needs to be as large as it is in the United States (don't know about Australia), I certainly prefer having one over not having one, as long as every other nation in the world has one.
I suppose my feeling about an individual soldier depends on his motivation. If he joins so he has the opportunity to shoot people, I don't respect him. If he joins because he loves his country, I may respect him a little more, but that phrase is so vague I don't really know what it means. If he joins because he is willing to put himself in a morally compromising position so others don't have to, I respect him even more. That's where most of my respect for soldiers comes from, not that they kill so that I don't have to die, but that they kill so I don't have to kill.

Speaking out against it's leaders, and voting for an alternative are not boycotts.

Standing outside Wal-Mart with a placard isn't boycotting Wal-Mart, UNLESS you follow through, and don't shop there. Running to K-Mart for all your stuff isn't a boycott, unless you follow through and DON'T pop into Wal-Mart while you're out.

So - how do you 'boycott' the armed forces? Surely - refusing to exchange business with them is about as pure as you can get?
I understand those aren't boycotts, what I don't understand is how refusing individuals service is. If a Wal-Mart employee came to my store, I wouldn't deny him service. If a Wal-Mart employee came into my store to buy food for Wal-Mart, I would. But this soldier was just trying to stay at a hotel.

My response doesn't directly answer your point but... Wealthy nations like the US or Britain or my own country, Australia, don't have any threats to their borders. The main purpose of a military in that case is to project power abroad. In my view, joining the military isn't a noble or conscientious act, it's merely abetting that unsavoury purpose.

Fair enough, except you're looking at it from your view rather than theirs; a soldier motivated by a more altruistic desire to "protect and serve", so to speak, is probably not likely to consider their use as instruments to project force, much less look forward to it. In such a case, I feel no contempt whatsoever. In fact, I'm quite thankful that there are people willing to help out; I save my contempt for those who set policy.

However, I should add that those soldiers who are in it mostly to shoot people and get away with it are scum; thankfully those are few in number, despite what some would lead us to believe.

Well. that's just respect for another human being it's got nothing to do with soldiers specifically.

Exactly! It works both ways.

I understand those aren't boycotts, what I don't understand is how refusing individuals service is. If a Wal-Mart employee came to my store, I wouldn't deny him service. If a Wal-Mart employee came into my store to buy food for Wal-Mart, I would. But this soldier was just trying to stay at a hotel.

You boycott Wal-Mart by refusing to trade with them. In that particular case, they happen to be the vendor, and you the customer.

Should the vendor be allowed to boycott customers?

Speaking out against it's leaders, and voting for an alternative are not boycotts.

Standing outside Wal-Mart with a placard isn't boycotting Wal-Mart, UNLESS you follow through, and don't shop there. Running to K-Mart for all your stuff isn't a boycott, unless you follow through and DON'T pop into Wal-Mart while you're out.

So - how do you 'boycott' the armed forces? Surely - refusing to exchange business with them is about as pure as you can get?

In theory one could refuse to do business with the higher ups, but in practice there aren't an awful lot of them, so chances are you'll never have the opportunity to refuse to do business with them.

Is 'douchey' not a legal term, then? :)

I have no doubt that in some case, somewhere, someone has needed to define the term 'douchey' for some legal purpose.

Don't make it sound so onesided. Anyone who has ever been near Catterick, for example, knows that squaddies go out looking for cops (or whoever else is nearest) to fight.

Good times.

It is the right of the business to refuse service to whoever they choose. If they decide it is not worth the finanical risk, they do not have to lodge them.
Not the unfettered right. Nor do I think businesses should ever have the unfettered right to refuse service on any grounds they choose.

I have no doubt that in some case, somewhere, someone has needed to define the term 'douchey' for some legal purpose.

Awesome. To the Legal-terms-mobile, Away!

Next week, "Cootie Queen'.

And I care...why?

Honestly, hundreds of soldiers were left homeless after various wars.

And I care...why?

Honestly, hundreds of soldiers were left homeless after various wars.

In situations not remotely comparable to this one...

Hey, guess what? Dresden hairbrush tango!

In situations not remotely comparable to this one...

Hey, guess what? Dresden hairbrush tango!

That's just nonsense, as well you know.

Everyone knows, Gerbil Gerbil Hamster Parachute.

Purple monkey dishwasher?

Rolling squid;13987460']no, but it means that you have the skills needed to beat them to a pulp, which I fully support if the reason for said assholery was military service.

Probably one of the reasons for the ban in the first place ...

Purple monkey dishwasher?

that was totally uncalled for. go wash out your mouth.

In situations not remotely comparable to this one...


Yes, I know. But somehow people are horrified by this.

that was totally uncalled for. go wash out your mouth.

Don't throw out the baby, though.

Yes, I know. But somehow people are horrified by this.

You're still making no sense.

Rwanda. Yikes! So yeah, people getting upset about being carjacked? Pfft.

Imagine if the word "millitary" was replaced with the word "black" or "arab" or "jew". The company should be sued by the courts just as if they told a black man "we dont serve your kind"

This is just another form of sepratism.

Imagine if the word "millitary" was replaced with the word "black" or "arab" or "jew". The company should be sued by the courts just as if they told a black man "we dont serve your kind"

This is just another form of sepratism.

And lordy how I despise Sepratism!

You're still making no sense.

Rwanda. Yikes! So yeah, people getting upset about being carjacked? Pfft.

MY point is, why is this big news, when it clear that there are much larger injustices in the world? So what that he spent a night in his car, hundreds of vets have to spend the rest of their lives on park benches.

MY point is, why is this big news, when it clear that there are much larger injustices in the world? So what that he spent a night in his car, hundreds of vets have to spend the rest of their lives on park benches.

MY counterpoint is that it's stupid to say 'oh noes, bigger injustices!' especially when comparing dissimilar issues.

Many people are homeless. Does this mean I shouldn't complain when my bloodsucking landlord wants to raise the rent for the umpteenth time this year? FUCK that.

sure there are many bigger problems. But there are also many comparative problems that get attention. This was a plain case of discrimination

Imagine if the word "millitary" was replaced with the word "black" or "arab" or "jew". The company should be sued by the courts just as if they told a black man "we dont serve your kind"

This is just another form of sepratism.

sued by the...courts?

MY counterpoint is that it's stupid to say 'oh noes, bigger injustices!' especially when comparing dissimilar issues.

Many people are homeless. Does this mean I shouldn't complain when my bloodsucking landlord wants to raise the rent for the umpteenth time this year? FUCK that.

I suppose this just proves people will cry over anything the media tells them to.

Imagine if the word "millitary" was replaced with the word "black" or "arab" or "jew". The company should be sued by the courts just as if they told a black man "we dont serve your kind"

This is just another form of sepratism.

Oh, the humanity.

When will the centuries of oppression of the military end? Not just in the U.K., but around the world?

The point seems to stand. He deserves no special treatment. Then again, neither do I think he deserved special sanction, not on the (few) facts.

I'm not saying he deserves special treatment. I'm arguing against Khadgar calling this person a murderer, and against his thinking that this happened in the US.

...hundreds of vets have to spend the rest of their lives on park benches.

Vets are among the most highly paid people in Australia. I guess people here love their pets more than you guys do.

And besides, why would you spend years studying veterinary science when you're gonna end up on a park bench?

I refused to vote in your poll as it is extremely biased. I find this neither disgusting nor wrong, same can not be said for the deification of troops that is all too common in the US.

Hotels, regardless of where they are, can do what they want unless they're owned by the government. Here, the clerk either did not like soldiers or made a mistake. Bother with him; if you don't like it, go protest like everyone else.

"Oh when oh when will this endless persecution of the army man end? If I choose to stay at the hotel when I clearly show that I am a soldier, then it is nobody's business but my own."

Props to those who get the rather subtle reference. :/

I can't think of a reason for someone to willfully torpedo their own business other than money laundering or incompetence...seems like incompetence stemming from the hotel's inability to make its policies clear. The only person that should be blamed is the manager for failing to make clear to their employees what exactly the policy is regarding military personnel.

They need to immediately fire the manager and replace them with someone capable of handling their responsibilities in a manner reflective of the hotel's policies. Nothing is worse than seeing an innocent person harassed, en route to a funeral no less, and an innocent hotel's image badly hurt by the ineptitude of its managerial staff.

Exactly! It works both ways.

No, not exactly at all. You were supposed to offer an example of respect specifically for soldiers. You failed to do so.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

That doesn't make it ethically responsible, but it does make it not illegal (as far as I know). What happened was exactly what should have happened. People heard about it and raised a well-deserved fuss. "Burned to the ground" is where I draw the line.

well it is their right. though it is my right to protest in front of the hotel so no one dares sets foot in it again for fear of having their picture taken knowingly entering a hotel that refuses soldiers.. Or flood the hotel with so many angry phone calls the paying customers cant receive or make phone calls.

Having seen first hand what British squaddies are like when off-duty, I can't say I blame the hotel at all for refusing to let them stay. It was regrettable that this guy bore the brunt.
I wonder about everyone saying this is disgusting and the place should be burned down - would you, if you ran a hotel, be happy putting up squaddies who drunkenly trash the place every time they're in there? Or would you - in an attempt to put a stop to this (thus saving your business), institute a blanket ban on all army personnel - as is your right as a private business?

What if the guy being refused service was a skinhead or a chav or a ebil Muslim, yet who had (unbeknownst to the receptionist) just saved a person's life - would you also find it totally disgusting, making no sense whatsoever and advocate the destruction of the premises?
Or would you instead say it was unnecessary and regrettable, yet you can understand the hotel's policy only that it was wrongly applied in this particular case?

because militarism is a bad thing

So I presume you absolutely hate Trotsky, shit, pretty much every revolutionary communist/anarchist that ever existed, right?


it leads to an easy acceptance of a whole host of really terrible, inherently anti-democratic shit.

Like what?

Indeed.

SNIP...The problem here has nothing to do with him being a soldeir...

The problem has everything to do with his being a soldier. If he were not a soldier he would have been given a room. He was denied a room because he is a soldier.

And that little gem is as good a reason as you're going to get, for barring squaddies.

Why is it I get the idea that "squaddies" is a derogatory term? Why is it I get the feeling you are prejudice against military people?

Why is it I get the idea that "squaddies" is a derogatory term? Why is it I get the feeling you are prejudice against military people?

No, it's not a derogatory term. It's like calling soldiers "Joe" in the States.

because militarism is a bad thing - it leads to an easy acceptance of a whole host of really terrible, inherently anti-democratic shit.

It also assures the continuation of Democracies.

I cut my foot, gimme a free night in a hotel room.

It also assures the continuation of Democracies.

Odd that the Founding Fathers were afraid of standing armies and much preferred militias.

A quote from Elbridge Gerry when discussing allowing religious exemptions to militia service.

Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

I cut my foot, gimme a free night in a hotel room.

Bout time you showed up Ruffi. Here have some cookies and join the thread. :fluffle:

A soldier wounded in Afghanistan went to a city for a funeral of one of his comrades who was killed fighting in the war. It was late at night and he went to a hotel to get a room and was told, "It is our policy not to rent rooms to people in the military." So, he spent the night sleeping in his small car with a cast on his arm.

That is absolutely disgusting and wrong. People should not be treated like this especially one who is willing to risk his life so that other people can be free.

Oh, this didn't happen in the US, it happened in the UK.

Well, the hotel finally issued an apology after they were swamped with telephone calls from angry people. Here is what the soldier's mother said;

"Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, has now returned to Afghanistan, but his mother, Gaynor Stringer, from Criccieth, North Wales, told The Times that she was still furious about the incident.

“I’m very, very angry. It’s discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin.”

She added: “In America, they treat soldiers as heroes. We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering. Here, soldiers can’t even get a bed for the night.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4674411.ece

Interesting policy.
Then again, I believe places like restaurants and hotels can refuse admission more or less at their discretion, you can't really force them to rent a room to someone they don't want to rent a room to.
And no, that stupid comparison with ethnicity doesn''t hold water in this case... joining the military is a choice, skin colour isn't.

It also assures the continuation of Democracies.

As well as the continuation of just about any other kind of governmental form, from dictatorships to theocracies. Your point?

Odd that the Founding Fathers were afraid of standing armies and much preferred militias.

A quote from Elbridge Gerry when discussing allowing religious exemptions to militia service.

The Founding Fathers were also not too keen on democracy. In fact, the same guy quoted is the one who decried the "excesses of democracy" in the pre-Constitution United States.

TOMMY

by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)



I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Anything much changed, Britain?

Having seen first hand what British squaddies are like when off-duty, I can't say I blame the hotel at all for refusing to let them stay. It was regrettable that this guy bore the brunt.
I wonder about everyone saying this is disgusting and the place should be burned down - would you, if you ran a hotel, be happy putting up squaddies who drunkenly trash the place every time they're in there? Or would you - in an attempt to put a stop to this (thus saving your business), institute a blanket ban on all army personnel - as is your right as a private business?

What if the guy being refused service was a skinhead or a chav or a ebil Muslim, yet who had (unbeknownst to the receptionist) just saved a person's life - would you also find it totally disgusting, making no sense whatsoever and advocate the destruction of the premises?
Or would you instead say it was unnecessary and regrettable, yet you can understand the hotel's policy only that it was wrongly applied in this particular case?

This.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

Firstly. War is not murder. The enemy are combatants, not civilians, therefore it is war. Not a crime. The reasons for a war may be just or just, right or wrong. But it is not a crime.

Secondly. A soldier, after he volunteers or is drafted, has no choice why he goes to war. He is trained to follow orders, whether its "Dear Leader" "Mien Fuhrer" or whatever is an irrelevance. A soldier can believe in his cause or not, he/she still follows orders, no matter who's side he/she is on.

Thirdly. A soldier who has fought for his/her country, whether offending or defending, deserves the respect of his people just fighting for them. He may of been ordered by a corrupt government, a just one, one with the right information or the wrong information. This doe's not matter, he fights for his country, and his people, whether they agree with the conflict or not, should support their fighting men/women.

I wonder about everyone saying this is disgusting and the place should be burned down - would you, if you ran a hotel, be happy putting up squaddies who drunkenly trash the place every time they're in there? Or would you - in an attempt to put a stop to this (thus saving your business), institute a blanket ban on all army personnel - as is your right as a private business?

While I didn't advocate the burning down of any establishment...

I would say, if I owned the place, any trashing would be documented by photographs and the repair bill sent to the guilty regestered party.

any refusual to pay would end up the person(s) being sued for damages with legal fees incuded into the lawsuit. should the trashing continue, then formal complaints to the commander would be in order.

if necessary, banning the person(s) from the property is a viable action to me since it still focuses on the person and not the group.

and that would incude Military, Boy Scouts, KKK, Skinheads or whomever stays in my hotel.

I would say, if I owned the place, any trashing would be documented by photographs and the repair bill sent to the guilty regestered party.
any refusual to pay would end up the person(s) being sued for damages with legal fees incuded into the lawsuit. should the trashing continue, then formal complaints to the commander would be in order.

All of that is good, but a simple ban is less expensive and less risky.

All of that is good, but a simple ban is less expensive and less risky.

and tends to punish those who have nothing to do with the troublemakers.

if people see you trying to be fair, they tend to be more understanding.

if this person stayed there in the past and caused trouble each time he did stay there, then I could understand the hotel saying 'sorry, stay somewhere else'. but to turn him away because other members of the armed forces (may not even be in his branch) caused trouble...

His family also sent threatening and abusive phone calls to the hotel. They can do what they want.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That doesn't make it ethically responsible, but it does make it not illegal (as far as I know). What happened was exactly what should have happened. People heard about it and raised a well-deserved fuss. "Burned to the ground" is where I draw the line.

Someone's been reading my mind again. Spooky. Also, in the 'that still doesn't make it right dept.' I've ridden in some luxury automobiles whose back-seats would have(and did)make much more comfortable beds than some of the flea-bag hotels I've stayed in.

I would say, if I owned the place, any trashing would be documented by photographs and the repair bill sent to the guilty regestered party.

all you need to do is get their details from the ID card and call the local base up for due compensation and (as shown when residents of an Italian port complained) get the offending soldiers to personally come up and apologize/repair any damage

farmers have started quite a money maker on the affair by paying soldiers on exercise to destroy old equipment for military compensation ;)

and tends to punish those who have nothing to do with the troublemakers.
Yes. That's the price.

But what if a hotel simply can't afford letting in squaddies, then spending a week in repairs, then trying to get the money out of these "clients", with 50% chance of success? You know servicemen have a certain degree of protection against civilian issues.

Barring a single guy was an overreaction, but it happens. The clerk was likely afraid he'd be fired if he lets the guy in.
Again - it's problems for the establishment.

Yes. That's the price.

But what if a hotel simply can't afford letting in squaddies, then spending a week in repairs, then trying to get the money out of these "clients", with 50% chance of success? You know servicemen have a certain degree of protection against civilian issues. they do there? here, they are still held accountable for their actions. and they are still liable to civil suits.

Barring a single guy was an overreaction, but it happens. The clerk was likely afraid he'd be fired if he lets the guy in.
Again - it's problems for the establishment.but this will happen more often with blanket policies.

all you need to do is get their details from the ID card and call the local base up for due compensation and (as shown when residents of an Italian port complained) get the offending soldiers to personally come up and apologize/repair any damage

farmers have started quite a money maker on the affair by paying soldiers on exercise to destroy old equipment for military compensation ;)

Agreed.

they do there? here, they are still held accountable for their actions. and they are still liable to civil suits.
Well, yes, formally. In practice, a soldier is much better protected against legal problems. For one, it's hard to make him pay at a higher rate than he can afford with his pay. That is, if he hasn't shipped out somewhere altogether, in which case you're welcome to try next year. Not always, but sometimes. Unlike with civvies, you don't have a direct leverage against servicemen, it's the military's goodwill that lets you prosecute them.


but this will happen more often with blanket policies.
Yes, it will.
But we have to answer the question, do we trust entrepreneurs to decide what's best for the business, or do we not.

Well, yes, formally. In practice, a soldier is much better protected against legal problems. For one, it's hard to make him pay at a higher rate than he can afford with his pay. That is, if he hasn't shipped out somewhere altogether, in which case you're welcome to try next year. Not always, but sometimes. Unlike with civvies, you don't have a direct leverage against servicemen, it's the military's goodwill that lets you prosecute them.yep, which is why swift action is usually called for. add to that the evidence of photographs as well as written statements means it will all be there.

Yes, it will.
But we have to answer the question, do we trust entrepreneurs to decide what's best for the business, or do we not.
that's not the question. the question is should the private business owner be allowed unrestrained right to refuse service.

and I answered that in my first post.

people tend to think that means freedom from the results of their actions.

yep, which is why swift action is usually called for. add to that the evidence of photographs as well as written statements means it will all be there.
Seriously, I have got away with a few small things myself, and that's without even properly serving. Not to mention how many stories of that I've heard from those properly serving.


that's not the question. the question is should the private business owner be allowed unrestrained right to refuse service.
and I answered that in my first post.
With "yes", IIRC. And I agree with that. Don't see what's the argument is about, really - if we trust the owner to decide what's best for him, then he has the freedom to take any actions, but however it backfires, that's his problems too.

Seriously, I have got away with a few small things myself, and that's without even properly serving. Not to mention how many stories of that I've heard from those properly serving.
small things like property damage?

With "yes", IIRC. And I agree with that. Don't see what's the argument is about, really - if we trust the owner to decide what's best for him, then he has the freedom to take any actions, but however it backfires, that's his problems too.I think it's because alot of people think that giving the owners the choice of who to serve somehow makes it legal for them to discriminate and to be free from any resulting backlash. which it does not. as you said, the results of their choices is also their responsibility.

So I presume you absolutely hate Trotsky, shit, pretty much every revolutionary communist/anarchist that ever existed, right?

stallies, trots, leninists, bunch of fucktards.
anarchists, on the other hand, can be militant but not militarists - if they start down that path they have compromised on core defining principles

Like what?

the formal military is an inherently anti-democratic organization, where orders are given by superiors and obeyed by everyone else, where violence is glorified as the way to achieve things, where people are purposefully broken down to be rebuilt as something else altogether. this all leads to a sense of being separate from the civilians, and a sense of being the ones who should step in when things start going wrong. oh, and they think themselves the ones who know what 'wrong' is.

one of the biggest dangers to democracies, one of the main ways they die, is by military coup. i don't have the numbers, but i'm pretty sure it is the most common way, actually.

small things like property damage?
Yeah. Property damage, physical contact (when it was well deserved). Just a brief explanation that one would have to go through two instances, both of which will be strongly on my side, convinced people to prefer an apology to "iwillsue" threats.


I think it's because alot of people think that giving the owners the choice of who to serve somehow makes it legal for them to discriminate and to be free from any resulting backlash. which it does not. as you said, the results of their choices is also their responsibility.
Yes. Freedom comes with responsibility, otherwise it's not freedom but privilege. Removing governmental regulation doesn't lead to anarchy, it leads to civil self-regulation. And it's not all that radically different - government regulation simply reflects what people think. The very fact that this pretty meager case of discrimination caused a reaction proves that the society will respond to discrimination itself, and that response clearly won't be good for business.

Yeah. Property damage, physical contact (when it was well deserved). Just a brief explanation that one would have to go through two instances, both of which will be strongly on my side, convinced people to prefer an apology to "iwillsue" threats. for an apology (and the other option being sue) sounds like property damage less than the trashing of a room (this is going by extreme trashing btw... the Areodynamics of the coffee table was fully experimented upon, the goat was sacrified and the sheets were used to make diapers for those who could not wait till the bathroom was unoccupied enough for them to get in.) ;)

Yes. Freedom comes with responsibility, otherwise it's not freedom but privilege. Removing governmental regulation doesn't lead to anarchy, it leads to civil self-regulation. And it's not all that radically different - government regulation simply reflects what people think. The very fact that this pretty meager case of discrimination caused a reaction proves that the society will respond to discrimination itself, and that response clearly won't be good for business.

while there are points I would disagree upon. following those would lead to a hijack... so I'll just say I mostly agree with you here.

can be militant but not militarists

Is there really any significant difference?


the formal military is an inherently anti-democratic organization, where orders are given by superiors and obeyed by everyone else

So? That's actually a good thing, a military without order is insane.


where violence is glorified as the way to achieve things

Not inherently. Plus, learning how to aim a rifle is only a very, very small part of military training. Most of it focus's around team work, co-operation and fitness, positive things.


where people are purposefully broken down to be rebuilt as something else altogether.

Not inherently. I neither see this as inherently bad either.


this all leads to a sense of being separate from the civilians, and a sense of being the ones who should step in when things start going wrong. oh, and they think themselves the ones who know what 'wrong' is.


Not all soldiers have the same personality. You shouldn't treat someone badly just because you assume that they have this sort of egotistical personality.


one of the biggest dangers to democracies

Yet you haven shown why at all.

one of the main ways they die, is by military coup. i don't have the numbers, but i'm pretty sure it is the most common way, actually.

Of course it is, that's only because whatever is the most powerful organisation in the country is the only one that can dispose of a government, if there was no military then it would simply be something else disposing of the government, which is normally civilian militias.

for an apology (and the other option being sue) sounds like property damage less than the trashing of a room (this is going by extreme trashing btw... the Areodynamics of the coffee table was fully experimented upon, the goat was sacrified and the sheets were used to make diapers for those who could not wait till the bathroom was unoccupied enough for them to get in.) ;)
I generally don't drink more than a gallon of beer. Two tops. And I avoid keeping company with people who get that drunk.

But still, there were situations where most people would pay, settle OOC, or be successfully sued, but I or me and my friends got off easy.

Soldiers trashing a room, when it can be properly documented, is generally not the case, but most likely you'd be lucky to get them to pay for half the actual damage (just the destroyed equipment, not the repairs), much less lost profit.

For being a human being he deserved better service. Beyond that nothing. You're not special because you went off to murder for Dear Leader. I'm terribly sorry if you believe otherwise.

I do not believe murder is what makes this fellow respected; it probably has more to do with the fact that he is risking his own life.

No so far only about 100,000 people have died for Shrubya's ego. Four thousand Americans, god knows how many innocent Iraqis. That's what's disgusting and wrong. A soldier being refused service is just a minor item in the news, not worthy of the fucking circle jerk going on here.

While I am certainly against the war, I do not believe most of the Iraqis killed were "innocent".

While I am certainly against the war, I do not believe most of the Iraqis killed were "innocent".

Modern high-tech wars generally have very low ratios of combatant:civilian kills. The combatants know how to stay out of danger, and the weapons are designed to cover hundreds of acres with every firing.

Modern high-tech wars generally have very low ratios of combatant:civilian kills. The combatants know how to stay out of danger, and the weapons are designed to cover hundreds of acres with every firing.

actually, modern High-Tech warfare tries to minimize civilian casualties. (operative word is TRIES)

I'm sure the carpet bombings of cities they used to do in WWII had an even worse Combatant:Civilian ratio than today.

also add in the idiots who do those human shields...

And I want one of you so called free market proponents to tell me if you think the government should step in and tell a private industry who they can and cannot serve.

I am a free market person for the most part and I do think the government has a role in protecting basic rights.

Modern high-tech wars generally have very low ratios of combatant:civilian kills. The combatants know how to stay out of danger, and the weapons are designed to cover hundreds of acres with every firing.

I doubt the aforementioned soldier uses many weapons besides an M-16.

Is there really any significant difference?

yes. a militarist is one who believes in militarism, which is about the promotion and glorification and power of the military. a militant is someone who is militant, which is about aggressive and confrontational tactics. one can be militant about abolishing the military.

So? That's actually a good thing, a military without order is insane.

strict hierarchy, especially that without direct accountability is the definition of anti-democratic.

Not inherently. Plus, learning how to aim a rifle is only a very, very small part of military training. Most of it focus's around team work, co-operation and fitness, positive things.

who is talking about the specifics of military training? i am talking about the fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-liberty aspects of the military and why that makes them dangerous things to glorify.

Of course it is, that's only because whatever is the most powerful organisation in the country is the only one that can dispose of a government, if there was no military then it would simply be something else disposing of the government, which is normally civilian militias.

you miss my point. democracies fall to their own military more often than they fall to other people's. they fall to their own military much more often than they collapse under their own unworkability.

actually, modern High-Tech warfare tries to minimize civilian casualties. (operative word is TRIES)
It tries a bit, that it does. But fist and foremost it's intended to minimize own combatant casualties.

So a task that in WWII would be solved by an assaulting platoon, today is solved by a couple guided missiles or a multirole fighter dropping a dozen of bombs. Of course, they are guided bombs, and try to minimize civilian casualties - but they're still bombs.

Today, the old-styled clash


I'm sure the carpet bombings of cities they used to do in WWII had an even worse Combatant:Civilian ratio than today.
Carpet bombings are different. They were intended to destroy civilian populace. It's not as much a sign of the times as a sign of an all-out war till the bitter end.

But still, even with this kind of strategic warfare, the combatant:civilian losses ratio of WWII is about 1:1, if we exclude German and Japanese death camps.
Today, ratios of 1:10 don't surprise anyone, and Iraq War estimates range from 1:8 (war body count of 2006) to 1:30 (2008, counting by household). That's including coalition losses.


And if we did start strategic warfare today, it would begin and proceed with combatant:civilian casualties ratios about 1:100 - approaching nations' total armed forced to civilian ratio.

I doubt the aforementioned soldier uses many weapons besides an M-16.

More likely to use an SA80. As he is British =P

Why is it I get the idea that "squaddies" is a derogatory term? Why is it I get the feeling you are prejudice against military people?

Because you want to, and because you want to.

"Squaddies" is what they call themselves. I'm not prejudiced against military people - I have both friends and relations that have been squaddies. And you can ask any of them - what is the reputation of squaddies, in and around somewhere like... for example, Catterick (which I mentioned earlier).

It's not an undeserved reputation - nor particularly surprising. Causing trouble IS, after all, basically what a military is FOR, and is TRAINED for.

More likely to use an SA80. As he is British =P

or the L85A2 as the British Army knows it.

also add in the idiots who do those human shields...

A 'human shield' isn't idiocy. It's a perfectly rational tool of asymmetric war. It's not nice, but it is effective.

A 'human shield' isn't idiocy. It's a perfectly rational tool of asymmetric war. It's not nice, but it is effective.

true. Its why they do it. If a human shield didnt work as a stratergy it would never be used

or the L85A2 as the British Army knows it.

I believe both terms are used. I've heard soldiers refer to the rifle with both identities.

I think the L85 is the class of rifle, where the SA80, Ensign, L85LSW and the carbine version spawn from.

I believe both terms are used. I've heard soldiers refer to the rifle with both identities.

I think the L85 is the class of rifle, where the SA80, Ensign, L85LSW and the carbine version spawn from.

L85 is the assault rifle and all the other weapons come from the SA80.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

true. Its why they do it. If a human shield didnt work as a stratergy it would never be used

That's why it isn't a war crime to shoot a human shield. So that people will stop doing it, since it would not then be effective.

SA80 is the term that's used.

yes. a militarist is one who believes in militarism, which is about the promotion and glorification and power of the military. a militant is someone who is militant, which is about aggressive and confrontational tactics. one can be militant about abolishing the military.


Ok so it's not actually the idea of aggressiveness or violence that makes the military so offensive then, since otherwise you would not be supporting militancy of any kind. It's about the 'anti-democratic' nature of it, gotcha.


strict hierarchy, especially that without direct accountability is the definition of anti-democratic.


No, that's non-democratic. Just because an organisation is non-democratic does not mean it's anti-democratic. In my job there is a strict hierarchy, I take orders from my boss, this organisation is non-democratic, but that does not mean it is against the concept of democracy altogether.


who is talking about the specifics of military training? i am talking about the fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-liberty aspects of the military and why that makes them dangerous things to glorify.


You are saying that 'violence' is glorified in the military. My main point is that there is no reason to assume that this will always be necessarily true. And I don't see it as particularly different from any other civilian revolutionary militia.


you miss my point. democracies fall to their own military more often than they fall to other people's. they fall to their own military much more often than they collapse under their own unworkability.

Just because something is vulnerable to corruption, does not make it shameful or wrong in itself. Not everyone who works for the government is shameful, yet the government is the most vulnerable organisation there is.

SA80 is the term that's used.

Thought so.

That's why it isn't a war crime to shoot a human shield. So that people will stop doing it, since it would not then be effective.

It probably is a war-crime, actually... but who is going to police it?

Non-combatants are not a valid target under Geneva Conventions and Protocols... but we're not 'at war' in Iraq, so technicalities don't matter.

It probably is a war-crime, actually... but who is going to police it?

Non-combatants are not a valid target under Geneva Conventions and Protocols... but we're not 'at war' in Iraq, so technicalities don't matter.

Yeah, but you aren't going back far enough. The Geneva Conventions are based on the earlier Hague Conventions - and according to that document, which is still the defining piece of the "laws of war", human shields and what happens to them are ALWAYS the responsibility of those using them.

Thus, it's perfectly legal to set up an artillery piece in the grounds of a local hospital. However, if you do so, you have absolved the enemy of any responsibility towards those noncombatants. He can paste the area flat with a clear conscience - all the deaths are your responsibility and yours alone.

When you think about it, it's the only rational way to play it. Otherwise, you're punishing people for being civilized and rewarding barbarism.

More likely to use an SA80. As he is British =P

That is a better weapon.

Did not the British withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq? :confused:

The Founding Fathers were also not too keen on democracy. In fact, the same guy quoted is the one who decried the "excesses of democracy" in the pre-Constitution United States.

Quite. I've always been a bigger fan of the Articles anyway.

More likely to use an SA80. As he is British =P

Or an M4 if he'd been American, only Marines and non-combat personnel use the M16 anymore.

Did not the British withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq? :confused:

Not as of yesterday, I saw a British convoy about 40km north of the Kuwaiti border last night.

While I am certainly against the war, I do not believe most of the Iraqis killed were "innocent".

Certainly not. There have been a lot of people killed in this war that did absolutely nothing to deserve it other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

NW, please remember OPSEC - what goes on in the AOR doesn't need to be broadcasted needlessly.

Unless what you wrote was deliberate misinformation, in which case, by all means! ;)

And I agree about the Iraqis - but we can't be blamed for someone else's criminal actions like that bogus accusation that the US is responsible for the death of (however ridiculously high figure) of Iraqis. Iraqis have killed far more Iraqis in this war than any other factions.

Oh my God! HE HAD TO SLEEP... IN THE CAR! THE HORROR!

Yeah... it's not like they refused to serve him at all, or made him come through a side entrance... or made him go sleep at the Servicemen only hotel....

It's still discrimination, and if you were dog tired with a broken wrist and there to attend a funeral, you won't appreciate being told to sleep in your car. But I suppose that it's fine since it's not your ox being gored.

NW, please remember OPSEC - what goes on in the AOR doesn't need to be broadcasted needlessly.

Saying a British convoy was sighted near the border is like saying there were American troops sighted in Baghdad. It's not exactly sensitive information. In fact, if you're anywhere near the border it's quite hard not to spot them. Now, if I were posting SP times, convoy compositions, ect. that would be an OPSEC issue.

And I agree about the Iraqis - but we can't be blamed for someone else's criminal actions like that bogus accusation that the US is responsible for the death of (however ridiculously high figure) of Iraqis. Iraqis have killed far more Iraqis in this war than any other factions.

Agreed the Iraqis (and other foreign anti-Coalition fighters) have killed rather more Iraqis than the Coalition, although the Coalition has killed more than a few that didn't need killing, especially at the beginning of the war. Of course, things have gotten much better in this regard in recent years.

And I want one of you so called free market proponents to tell me if you think the government should step in and tell a private industry who they can and cannot serve.


It wasn't the government that stepped in... The voice of the consumer won. A business has the right to deny people entry, yes, but they also have to pay the ramifications for that... In this case, the hotel was sandblasted and will probably lose business due to this incident. That's capitalism in action. You see, you make the mistake of thinking that because we don't want the government to step in, we think businesses should be allowed to get away with anything... You couldn't be more wrong. A true capitalist believes that boycotting and badmouthing a business due to immoral practices will do more than getting the government enact new policies.

By the way, what that hotel did is disgusting and wrong... I hope the hotel goes under for this.

No, that's non-democratic. Just because an organisation is non-democratic does not mean it's anti-democratic. In my job there is a strict hierarchy, I take orders from my boss, this organisation is non-democratic, but that does not mean it is against the concept of democracy altogether.

yeah, it does. allowing non-democratic institutions to occupy positions of power and influence, let alone to celebrate them and their non-democratic ways leads to and is premised on a devaluing of democracy. the key point of democracy isn't that 'it works better' or whatever, but that it is fundamentally more just than the alternative. non-democratic institutions are inherently in conflict with democratic ones on the question of how things ought be governed. it actually could be described as a semi-darwinian conflict for memetic dominance.

You are saying that 'violence' is glorified in the military. My main point is that there is no reason to assume that this will always be necessarily true. And I don't see it as particularly different from any other civilian revolutionary militia.

if you have a military that isn't an inherently violent organization, you no longer have a military. what exactly would a standing army be otherwise?

and while violence is sometimes necessary, having a permanent and separate institution run on unjust principles that is based on it doesn't appear to be.

Just because something is vulnerable to corruption, does not make it shameful or wrong in itself. Not everyone who works for the government is shameful, yet the government is the most vulnerable organisation there is.

coups are not about 'corruption'. and even if they were, having a cultural imperative to treat the military as awesome and beyond reproach seems like an excellent way to 'corrupt' them. and we certainly shouldn't go around celebrating any aspects of the state that make it vulnerable to 'corruption' (like, for example, unaccountable hierarchy and power...)

A true capitalist believes that boycotting and badmouthing a business due to immoral practices will do more than getting the government enact new policies.

not on this planet. capitalists love getting government to enact the policies they favor. way cheaper for them.

A soldier wounded in Afghanistan went to a city for a funeral of one of his comrades who was killed fighting in the war. It was late at night and he went to a hotel to get a room and was told, "It is our policy not to rent rooms to people in the military." So, he spent the night sleeping in his small car with a cast on his arm.


?
Some people are quite dumb. And, btw, I don't think that the laws of any EU country can allow to discriminate about one's job. A customer is a customer.

I think that we don't know the full facts and that people should consider that. The hotel may have had problems with military in the past, the individual in question may have been belligerent and argumentative, or intoxicated, or there may be another reason, such as miscommunication. To assume the facts based on the OP and the article attached is silly.

Most hotels on the Gold Coast do not rent to groups of young people during November anymore due to the inordinate damage that schoolies cause. Most young people are going there to have a good time, but the few have ruined it for the many. Perhaps it is the same case here?

I think that we don't know the full facts and that people should consider that. The hotel may have had problems with military in the past, the individual in question may have been belligerent and argumentative, or intoxicated, or there may be another reason, such as miscommunication. To assume the facts based on the OP and the article attached is silly.

Most hotels on the Gold Coast do not rent to groups of young people during November anymore due to the inordinate damage that schoolies cause. Most young people are going there to have a good time, but the few have ruined it for the many. Perhaps it is the same case here?

I think it is the case. My brother has served in the forces for a long time and can tell some stories about getting back from operations and going on 2 or 3 day drinking sprees. The hotel may have been scared of a load of drunken squaddies wrecking the place and brought in this policy.
However, it could have been handled a lot more sensitively by the hotel, which would have reduced the enormous amount of bad press they got (rightly so in my opinion - i would never contemplate using that chain now)

That is a better weapon.

Did not the British withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq? :confused:

I think they may have pulled out of Iraq, but they still have a presence in Afghanistan.

?
Some people are quite dumb. And, btw, I don't think that the laws of any EU country can allow to discriminate about one's job. A customer is a customer.

True, but have you ever seen the "management retains the right to refuse service" sign in hotels, bars, restaurants, etc?

See, I remember a little while back a homeless guy trying to get onto a bus from Cork to Galway. He wasn't obviously drunk at the time, and he held a ticket (from one of the machines, not the ticket counter).
The bus driver refused to let him on the bus, and when he managed to squeeze past the driver, they called the gardai to get rid of him.

Places providing services to the public NEED the right to refuse certain people, and will do so in blanket bans if necessary.
It's not the first time I've heard of people being refused service due to being soldiers (usually due to previous experiences of the owner and staff with soldiers), and I don't quite get what's so outrageous about it.

This thread still going on? If it wasn't for the thorough discussionary exploitation of insignificant incidents, NSG would have quietly crawled into a corner to die in silence years ago.

not on this planet. capitalists love getting government to enact the policies they favor. way cheaper for them.

Like I said, a true capitalist... Anyone who favors government policies (especially of that nature) is not a true capitalist.

Like I said, a true capitalist... Anyone who favors government policies (especially of that nature) is not a true capitalist.

whatever you say, scotty

whatever you say, scotty

Scotty? What are you talking about? I'm Jewish, dude... I don't have an ounce of Scottish (or any Western European) herritage. So weather you're talking about Star Trek or Scots in general, I don't fit either mold.

Scotty? What are you talking about? I'm Jewish, dude... I don't have an ounce of Scottish (or any Western European) herritage. So weather you're talking about Star Trek or Scots in general, I don't fit either mold.

"No True Scotsman".

No true capitalist (in this case) will do x, y or z.... so, if you find a contraindicatory argument, that example (clearly) can't be a 'true capitalist'.

See the problem?

By the way, what that hotel did is disgusting and wrong... I hope the hotel goes under for this.
tell me: what if it wasn't a squaddie but a nationalist skinhead who was turned away. A skinhead who had broken their wrist not in a fight (as one would expect) but saving someone's life (but the hotel wasn't aware of this).
Would you still say it was disgusting the hotel turning him away and hope it went under?

"No True Scotsman".

No true capitalist (in this case) will do x, y or z.... so, if you find a contraindicatory argument, that example (clearly) can't be a 'true capitalist'.

See the problem?

I get it... Never heard that before... Interesting.

"No True Scotsman".

No true capitalist (in this case) will do x, y or z.... so, if you find a contraindicatory argument, that example (clearly) can't be a 'true capitalist'.

See the problem?

the fallacy only works when the proported action is not inherent in the definition of the word. If it is, then claiming an action is outside the definition of the term is perfectly valid.

the fallacy only works when the proported action is not inherent in the definition of the word. If it is, then claiming an action is outside the definition of the term is perfectly valid.

but given that neither sense of the noun 'capitalist' does place the action in question outside of the definition of the term, we still have a problem

No true capitalist (in this case) will do x, y or z.... so, if you find a contraindicatory argument, that example (clearly) can't be a 'true capitalist'.
See the problem?

You can apply the Evil Benchmark. Since you know capitalism is evil, you can test whether something is a necessary capitalist trait by asking a question, "Would Satan do it?".

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

That doesn't make it ethically responsible, but it does make it not illegal (as far as I know). What happened was exactly what should have happened. People heard about it and raised a well-deserved fuss. "Burned to the ground" is where I draw the line.

There is legal precedence for this sort of case. The Supreme Court ruled that not allowing service because of military service was equally unjust as discrimination because of nationality, sex etc. I read the case brief a while ago, but if I remember correctly, it was a bar in NY that refused to serve a pair of soldiers in the 70s.

Though, since this is UK, not sure that this helps much.

There is legal precedence for this sort of case. The Supreme Court ruled that not allowing service because of military service was equally unjust as discrimination because of nationality, sex etc. I read the case brief a while ago, but if I remember correctly, it was a bar in NY that refused to serve a pair of soldiers in the 70s.

Though, since this is UK, not sure that this helps much.

"a bar in NY" is not a state actor, thus their behavior is limited only by statute, and may discriminate against any entity, as a matter of law, that the statute does not say they can not.

thats an odd policy. i wonder how they justified it.

Well, from the stories I hear from my friends who are in the armed forces, local pubs, bars, hotels, and whatnot tend to not like people in the armed forces for many reasons, one of which the roudiness and destruction of property that almost always ensues(Coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak). They only really don't kick them out because of the vast amounts of money that armed forces members will pour into their businesses, however that makes them moreso a needed customer over a welcomed guest, which is a big difference. Hence, I can see why a company may enact such a policy.

Remember: This info comes from my friends in the armed forces, who like to brag about their... experiences, so to speak.

Well, from the stories I hear from my friends who are in the armed forces, local pubs, bars, hotels, and whatnot tend to not like people in the armed forces for many reasons, one of which the roudiness and destruction of property that almost always ensues(Coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak).

*has fond memories of "Combat Alley" in Friedberg, Germany*

You can apply the Evil Benchmark. Since you know capitalism is evil, you can test whether something is a necessary capitalist trait by asking a question, "Would Satan do it?".

That would work too, but works better for Libertarianism than just plain capitalism. :)