British Parliament Passes Bill to Elect More Women
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 05:52:43 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
> <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >fyi
> >Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> >but rather imposition of advantage...
> >
> >----------------------------------------------
> >
> >http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/816
> >
> >15 February 2002
> >
> >British Parliament Passes Bill to Elect More Women
> >By Paul Rodgers
> >WENews correspondent
> >
> >[Faced with a shrinking percentage of women in the British Parliament,
> >lawmakers are searching for ways to redress the imbalance. A recent
> >bill would legalize a controversial approach: women-only slates.]
> >
> >LONDON (WOMENSENEWS) - Confronted by the first drop in the number of
> >women elected to the House of Commons in 20 years, British lawmakers
> >have passed a bill to reinstate a previously banned election procedure
> >that favors female candidates for seats in Parliament.
>
> It's worth noting that the drop occurred only because large numbers
> of women were simply given seats they hadn't earned in the last
> election. Some of those women have quit for various reasons and there
> aren't enough women who want the job to replace those who have left unless
> men are explicitly barred from even trying for the seat. Which is
> precisely what has now happened. The drop was also just 2
> MPs, from a total of 659.
>
> How long will it be before disenfranchising men is on the cards?
>
> I'm listening for the feminist opposition to this blatant sexism. People
> are being denied even the chance to serve in Parliament, solely
> because of their sex. It would be hard to be more sexist. Since
> feminism is about sexual equality, feminists will obviously be
> strenuously objecting to this law.
>
> Oh, wait. It's a feminist law, not just supported by mainstream
> feminism but actively advocated by mainstream feminism, along
> with almost all on the non-mainstream. Those feminists who object
> do so only because they think it will have a negative effect on
> women.
>
> Hmm...perhaps feminism isn't about sexual equality at all. Who
> would have thought it?
>
> [..]
>
>
So if you can't win at the ballot box throw out the election and just
appoint a woman for that position?!!! What a bunch of fucking losers.
sky
GodEvolved
news:MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
And just think! These people are the USA's biggest and strongest European
military ally. Bwahahahaha!
>
--
-----------------
Archbishop of the Church of the Holy Cabbage
Lettuce Pray
-----------------
john
dad
"Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Sky King
m...@home.net says...
Angilion
>In article <MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net>,
>m...@home.net says...
[..]
>> So if you can't win at the ballot box throw out the election and just
>> appoint a woman for that position?!!! What a bunch of fucking losers.
>> sky
Not quite true. The idea is to find seats that your party is going to
win and not allow any man to be your candidate there, or even
apply to be your candidate. Since most people vote for a party
rather than a candidate and most people don't care how much
men are discriminated against, it works. The election that is
thrown away is the one in which party members elect a candidate.
Oh, they might get to vote for one woman or another, but that's
no more a genuine election than one in which the electorate
get only to choose between candidates from the same party
and all other parties are forbidden to field candidates. It's a
rigged "election", that's all.
>They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
doing so about 3 years ago.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
not hang. sky
>
Angilion
>In article <3c77ec66...@news.freeserve.net>,
>angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:44 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
[..]
>> >They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
>>
>> Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
>> forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
>> doing so about 3 years ago.
>
>They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
>not hang. sky
There's insufficient data, really.
Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
attained the required standard.
Of those three women, two dropped out early in the course. One
lasted the entire course and failed only on the last stage, which
tests the soldier's ability to survive in the wild. Yes, I do mean that
she passed the tests of physical ability. For a commando unit. She
could probably pass it on a second attempt, which is normally
allowed (you can make an attempt every year). The recent
changes may prevent her from having a second attempt, solely
because of her sex.
There is a very high failure rate on that course, because of the
extremely high standards. *Most* people fail it or drop out
because they acknowledge they will not be able to pass it.
Three women is not a sufficiently large sample size from which
to make conclusions.
John D Salt
news:3c793877...@news.freeserve.net:
[Snips]
> Marines. AFAIK, soldiers who do so are entitled to wear the
> beret of the Royal Marines even though they are not actually
> in the Royal Marines, because they have attained the
> required standard.
That's pretty much right. To be picky, the green beret is not in
its origins a Royal Marine distinction -- the Army raised
commandos first, although the Army Commandos were disbanded
shortly after the war. The signals, engineer and artillery
elements of 3 Commando Brigade, who are drawn from the Army, not
the Marines, wear the green beret along with their own Army cap-
badge.
[Snips]
> There is a very high failure rate on that course, because of
> the extremely high standards.
There is also the fact that the all-arms Commando course is more
compressed in time than the course intended for Royal Marines.
There is thus no possibility of "back-squadding" someone to allow
for an injury during training.
All the best,
John.
Malcolm
Angilion writes
[snipped]
>
>Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
>allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
>have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
>who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
>though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
>attained the required standard.
To be more precise they are, as I understand it, entitled to wear the
green beret but with their own regimental badge.
>
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.
I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
Brian Sharrock
"John D Salt" <john...@NOSPAM.btclick.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91BFD3858CA...@62.172.195.196...
> angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote in
> news:3c793877...@news.freeserve.net:
>
> [Snips]
> > Marines. AFAIK, soldiers who do so are entitled to wear the
> > beret of the Royal Marines even though they are not actually
> > in the Royal Marines, because they have attained the
> > required standard.
>
> That's pretty much right. To be picky, the green beret is not in
> its origins a Royal Marine distinction -- the Army raised
> commandos first, although the Army Commandos were disbanded
> shortly after the war. The signals, engineer and artillery
> elements of 3 Commando Brigade, who are drawn from the Army, not
> the Marines, wear the green beret along with their own Army cap-
> badge.
>
but many posters still seem confused.
Britain's armed forces employ 'warriors'
in a COMMANDO role. Lightly armed rapid deployable
units. The sign of a commando is the green beret.[1]
The term COMMANDO does not have a plural.
Thus, one man is a Commando, an entire Brigade is
also a Commando.
Apart from the bandsmen, the entire Corps of Royal Marines
is dedicated to the Commando role.
[Previously, the Corps had several roles including Light
Infantry and artillery]. Recruits to the Corps sport the
normal RM beret with their Corps' capbadge.
On successful completion of the Commando course, Marines
are entitled to _replace_ their 'own' beret with the green
_commando_ beret.
Because the entire Corps is dedicated to the Commando role,
if a recruit doesn't pass the commando course ... then he's
no longer a marine.
'Warrior's from other 'Arms' of Britain's fighting forces
- such as Royal Artillery, Royal Signals, REME et.al. -
who aspire to serve in their own corps' commando designated
units are required to pass the "Commando All Arms' course.
Successful graduates of this course are entitled to wear the
green _Commando_ beret. [Along with their own capbadge.]
At the risk of repetition ... a GREEN beret is the sign of
a COMMANDO. Some Commando belong to the Royal Marines, some
to RS, RA, REME et, al.
It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
[1] Britain's armed forces have other shades of green
beret too, 'Green Slime' aks Intelligence Corps.
--
Brian
Sky King
says...
> In article <3c793877...@news.freeserve.net> Sun, 24 Feb 2002,
> Angilion writes
> [snipped]
> >
> >Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> >allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> >have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> >who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> >though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> >attained the required standard.
No woman has passed the standards to become Royal Marines. sky
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:29:23 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c77ec66...@news.freeserve.net>,
> >angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:44 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
> >>
> >> Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
> >> forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
> >> doing so about 3 years ago.
> >
> >They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
> >not hang. sky
>
> There's insufficient data, really.
>
> Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> attained the required standard.
>
> Of those three women, two dropped out early in the course. One
> lasted the entire course and failed only on the last stage, which
> tests the soldier's ability to survive in the wild. Yes, I do mean that
> she passed the tests of physical ability.
Cites? It is not what I read. sky
For a commando unit. She
> could probably pass it on a second attempt, which is normally
> allowed (you can make an attempt every year). The recent
> changes may prevent her from having a second attempt, solely
> because of her sex.
Nope. Solely because of her performance. sky
>
> There is a very high failure rate on that course, because of the
> extremely high standards. *Most* people fail it or drop out
> because they acknowledge they will not be able to pass it.
> Three women is not a sufficiently large sample size from which
> to make conclusions.
>
> We already have that data from other areas where they tried and failed. sky
Peter McLelland
> In article <8Cf+xSAU$fe8...@tosd.demon.co.uk>, mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk
> says...
> > In article <3c793877...@news.freeserve.net> Sun, 24 Feb 2002,
> > Angilion writes
> > [snipped]
> > >
> > >Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> > >allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> > >have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> > >who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> > >though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> > >attained the required standard.
>
> No woman has passed the standards to become Royal Marines. sky
Only because women are not allowed to join the Royal Marines, a fact you
have yourself pointed out.
Peter
Stephen Shepherd
Sky King wrote:
> In article <8Cf+xSAU$fe8...@tosd.demon.co.uk>, mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk
> says...
> > In article <3c793877...@news.freeserve.net> Sun, 24 Feb 2002,
> > Angilion writes
> > [snipped]
> > >
> > >Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> > >allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> > >have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> > >who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> > >though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> > >attained the required standard.
>
> No woman has passed the standards to become Royal Marines. sky
>
Well, I don't think any women has currently passed the All Arms/Commando
course. However, women are serving in the Royal Marines as members of the
Royal Marine Band Service. In times of tension "Royal Marines Musicians and
Buglers are trained for a specific military role. Royal Marines Bands were
involved in both the Falklands conflict and Operation Granby in the Persian
Gulf. In the latter part of 1998, Scotland band were deployed in HMS OCEAN
and assisted in relief work in Nicaragua and Honduras in the aftermath of
Hurricane Mitch." (RN/RM website). That military role used to be stretcher
bearer, but they may have additional medical training nowadays.
Sky King
says...
to announce the results and their recommendations this summer.
According to the article they are going to continue the ban one women in
certain areas. sky
>
Matt Clonfero
Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
>The term COMMANDO does not have a plural.
>Thus, one man is a Commando, an entire Brigade is
>also a Commando.
Are you sure about this? While I know that the term for a regiment is `a
Commando'; surely three Marines might be referred to as `Commandos'?
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy
John D Salt
news:fDre8.3212$7U.9...@monolith.news.easynet.net:
[Snips]
> This topic has been posted here many times,
> but many posters still seem confused.
Indeed. So I'm a little confused as to why you are posting
material that merely repeats what I said, apart from...
> The term COMMANDO does not have a plural.
> Thus, one man is a Commando, an entire Brigade is
> also a Commando.
...this rather odd pair of errors. The plural is of course
"commandos" in either sense, and is well attested; the collective
noun refers to a battalion-sized unit, not a brigade.
All the best,
John.
Peter McLelland
is incorrect, no femails have been considered for joining the Royal marines.
Like the British press you seem to believe that the truth should not get in
the way of a good story!
Peter
Sky King
allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that
Sky King
FYI
Sunday Times
27 January 2002
Women troops to be kept off front line
James Clark, Defence Correspondent
Wowmn will not be allowed to fight with frontline units in the British
military, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, will announce next month.
The hell you say.........chuckle
sky
The saga over whether women should be allowed to join units such as the
Parachute Regiment, SAS, marines and armoured regiments has been running
since Labour took office in 1997.
A report on the issue, known as the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study
(CEGS) and written by the army on behalf of all three services, was
handed
into the chiefs of staff, Britain's most senior military figures, last
summer. It showed that while some exceptional female candidates could
manage frontline roles, most are not physically up to the job.
They just can't hang. Tsk. Tsk. sky
Hoon will announce that women will continue to be barred from "direct-
fire
close combat" roles or roles where close-quarter fighting with the enemy
is
likely.
Gee, why am I not surprised. Its what I have been saying all along.
sky
The move is sure to cause ructions among Labour backbenchers, many of
whom
regard the army's bar on women as sexism. However, it will please Iain
Duncan Smith, the Tory leader who, as shadow defence secretary under
William Hague, backed the status quo.
So if women are given a chance and they can't do the job its sexism.?
sky
Alice Mahon, Labour MP, said: "I suspect that many of these tests were
flawed. If women compete physically with men, then obviously most will
fail. The truth is that most fighting these days is done from 20,000ft.
I
will be disappointed with the announcement."
Oh and now the "flawed" test strategy. By flawed they mean to hard for
the little women. Note how she predicts that women and men will no
longer have to fight anyway. They are starting to sound like the
feminist in the US. They predict no more pack carrying, no long
marches, They will have little thingies to help them with everything.
If a woman cannot do it the job requires a bot. chuckle
sky
However, Claire Ward, another MP, disagreed. She spent a year alongside
the
Royal Marines as part of a parliamentary armed forces scheme, in which
MPs
experience military life. "I arrived with the view that women should
have
the right to do this and told them so," said Ward. "But after a year I
had
my mind changed.
At least one that had actually been there tells the truth. sky
"I don't think women are physically built for it, and I also think that
while the lads I knew were mature and calm, they are trained to be very
aggressive and, let's be frank, to kill, often with bare hands. I
believe
firmly in equality, but men and women are different."
So men and women are different. They wasted a lot of money to find out
what most of us already knew. sky
At present 73% of navy jobs are open to women, with the marines, the
Special Boat Squadron and submarines exempted. In the army, the figure
is
70% with infantry, armour and SAS exempted. In the RAF, 96% of jobs are
available to women, including piloting fighter jets.
Women can still serve in war zones, with a number currently in
Afghanistan,
but they are excluded from units whose role it is to engage with the
enemy.
Note that they can serve in war ZONES but are excluded from units whose
role it is to engage with the enemy. Even the Brits know the difference
between a combat zone and COMBAT. sky
As well as gathering data from across the world, especially from
America,
Israel and Scandinavia where women are used in some frontline roles, the
CEGS authors carried out a host of physical tests on groups of male and
female soldiers in the Brecon Beacons in Wales.
It was thought that the most serious problems might emerge in the way
the
soldiers interacted. However, while the cohesion of mixed-sex units
suffered slightly, the report found stark differences in performance.
Tests
also showed that the injury rate among women was double that of male
soldiers.
Double the rate of men. Again I am not surprised. sky
The army went out of its way to compile an "open-minded and scientific"
report, said a senior Ministry of Defence figure: "This is a report full
of
scientific data, not opinions. It had to be done fairly and it has
been."
I bet they went out of their way to TRY and make sure these women could
pass and it still didn't work. Its back to support roles for them.
sky
While the announcement will delight traditionalists, the ministry is
preparing for a legal challenge. Lawyers have advised that a case could
be
brought under the European convention on human rights if an applicant
claimed she was denied a job on grounds of gender.
LOL. They are not admitted because they cannot perform. sky
Last year opponents of the ban had a potential champion in Philippa
Tattersall, 26, an army captain who attempted the arduous all-arms
commando
course one of the world's toughest. Somewhat unfairly, she became a
talisman for women's groups after failing on the last part, having
outperformed most of the male applicants.
Poor baby. chuckle
sky
Sky King
says...
William Black
Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fDre8.3212$7U.9...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
<various snips>
> This topic has been posted here many times,
> but many posters still seem confused.
> Britain's armed forces employ 'warriors'
> in a COMMANDO role. Lightly armed rapid deployable
> units. The sign of a commando is the green beret.
> 'Warrior's from other 'Arms' of Britain's fighting forces
What's this 'warrior' stuff.
A warrior is a product of a warrior culture.
Urban Britain can be pretty rough, but it doesn't yet produce tribal
warriors.
HMG employs soldiers, soldiers fight because they have to, warriors fight
because it's what they do.
You should read John Keegan's 'History of Warfare', he's good on stuff like
that.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Brian Sharrock
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5gfpa$mad$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fDre8.3212$7U.9...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>
> <various snips>
>
> > This topic has been posted here many times,
> > but many posters still seem confused.
> > Britain's armed forces employ 'warriors'
> > in a COMMANDO role. Lightly armed rapid deployable
> > units. The sign of a commando is the green beret.
>
> > 'Warrior's from other 'Arms' of Britain's fighting forces
>
> What's this 'warrior' stuff.
>
to embrace sappers, bootnecks, guuners, (both male and female)
as the terms 'Royal Marine' and/or 'Commando' seem to
cause confusion in contributors from the USA. Our
USAian contributors utilse the terms warrior and veterans
to mean members and ex-members of organised fighting forces.
> A warrior is a product of a warrior culture.
>
> Urban Britain can be pretty rough, but it doesn't yet produce tribal
> warriors.
Why did you introduce the term 'tribal'?
Is it your position that all warriors are tribal?
How do you define the term 'tribal'?
>
> HMG employs soldiers, soldiers fight because they have to, warriors
fight
> because it's what they do.
>
HMG pass funds to MoD which via various mechanisms result in the
payment of 'soldiers', despite this 'soldiers' are not employed by HMG.
I attested by an Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs and
lawful successrs, to serve within _her_ armed forces and to obey the
orders of those (Air) Officers appointed over me. [No mention of
HMG in any of my documents]. I 'fought' because I was ordered to by
somebody in the chain of command appointed over me, and upon mature
reflection believed that the immediate order was lawful, at all times
following the constraints of my personal copy of the yellow card
carried in my top left pocket. :)
You service may have differed.
> You should read John Keegan's 'History of Warfare', he's good on stuff
like
> that.
>
Sir John Keegan is good on this 'stuff', but IRRC he is
contrasting the Warrior _culture_ to the British culture.
As you probably know; within the British forces the sign
"All Warriors are reminded that their weapon has been provided
by the lowest bidder" (or variants) is quite common, in crew rooms,
hangar doors, armouries, etc.
Stephen Shepherd
Brian Sharrock wrote:
Attested by? Have to be careful of my English here. You mean you bore
witness to it? In the RN we never swore an Oath of Allegiance - "The Royal
Navy was formed hundreds of years ago, and its existence stems from the
sovereign's prerogative - members of the Navy have never therefore been
required to take the oath."
Angilion
<stephen_...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>Brian Sharrock wrote:
[..]
>> HMG pass funds to MoD which via various mechanisms result in the
>> payment of 'soldiers', despite this 'soldiers' are not employed by HMG.
>>
>> I attested by an Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs and
>> lawful successrs, to serve within _her_ armed forces and to obey the
>> orders of those (Air) Officers appointed over me. [No mention of
>> HMG in any of my documents]. I 'fought' because I was ordered to by
>> somebody in the chain of command appointed over me, and upon mature
>> reflection believed that the immediate order was lawful, at all times
>> following the constraints of my personal copy of the yellow card
>> carried in my top left pocket. :)
>>
>> You service may have differed.
>
>Attested by? Have to be careful of my English here. You mean you bore
>witness to it?
I believe he is using the language in the same way that it is now used
in English courts, in which an areligious oath is referred to as an
attestation.
Jurors are given the choice of swearing their oath while holding the
holy book sacred to them, in which case their deity is deemed to be
the ultimate witness to their oath, or attesting their oath before
witnesses.
You attest an oath on your own honour. You swear an oath on your
faith that whatever deity or deities you believe in will punish you if
you break it.
That's my understanding of the matter, anyway.
[..]
Stephen Shepherd
Angilion wrote:
From http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page342.asp again,
"On enlistment, the Acts require members of the Army, Air Force and Royal
Marines ... take an oath of allegiance to the monarch as Head of the Armed
Forces"
but,
"those for whom it is against their religion to take oaths and those who are
of no religion, affirm instead of swearing an oath"
From my understanding of that, you swear an oath if you're follow faith and it
so allows, otherwise you affirm an oath.
So would attesting thus be the same as affirming?
William Black
> I attested by an Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs and
> lawful successrs, to serve within _her_ armed forces and to obey the
> orders of those (Air) Officers appointed over me. [No mention of
> HMG in any of my documents].
Guess who gets to pick who the 'lawful successors are.
The fact is, and the fact remains, that the armed forces of the UK act as
the government of the day tells them. This has been the case since they cut
Charles I's head off.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three.
Peter McLelland
We have discussed the relevance of all this before haven't you any thing
new?
Peter
Stephen Shepherd
William Black wrote:
> Brian Sharrock <bria...@pavilion.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nQ_e8.5073$7U.14...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>
> > I attested by an Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, her heirs and
> > lawful successrs, to serve within _her_ armed forces and to obey the
> > orders of those (Air) Officers appointed over me. [No mention of
> > HMG in any of my documents].
>
> Guess who gets to pick who the 'lawful successors are.
>
> The fact is, and the fact remains, that the armed forces of the UK act as
> the government of the day tells them. This has been the case since they cut
> Charles I's head off.
>
Quite right:-
"The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is the monarch alone who can
declare war and peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch was
responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often
leading them into battle.) These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the
monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising
or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be
with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. [What about time of war
then I ask?] The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the
advice of responsible Ministers."
Brian Sharrock
"Angilion" <angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c7cdb9b...@news.freeserve.net...
Sorry to stick my oar in again :)
The original post was 'HMG employ soldiers" my point
was HMG don't employ soldiers, it's HM Forces not HMG forces.
The point is subtle but vital to our constitution.
Other Reponses have pointed out that RN doesn't swear an oath of
allegiance because their loyalty is not in question.
Older members of the ng may remember the scene in "Albert RN"
when the 'boffin' character played by James Justice-Robertson{?}
bridles at the German asking for Name, Rank, and Number and replies;-
"Officers of the Royal Navy are not numbered!" (or words to
that effect).
The air force, as an off-shoot of the Army, do undergo an act of
attestation on joining.
IIRC The ceremony was the ultimate stage of a long counselling,
testing, medical examination and form filling process.
IIRC, the ceremony occurred at the Recruiting Office (now known
as Career Information Office). The office was close to home.
I received a letter _inviting_ me to attend there by appointment.
Attestation took place in a 'tarted up' area. We had a Union Flag
and RAF Ensign flanking a portrait of the Queen (Agonnini's)
and a picture of the Duke of Edinburgh in RAF uniform and such
luminaries as Trenchard on the other wall.
The unit's CO, addressed the recruits, making certain that we knew
the terms of the contract we were to sign and warning us of the dire
consequences of 'false attestation'. We individually had
the opportunity to indicate our religion and/or determine whether
or not to make an affirmation. All those indicating that they
wanted to swear the oath were given a copy of their 'holy book'.
We were individually asked to examine the book and confirm that
it was valid for our faith. [Factually, there were only two
categories present at 'my' ceremony;- Protestants and Catholics,
nobody wished to make an affirmation.
The proddies had a KJ version of the Bible and Catholics had
a Douai version of the New Testament ... I had a similar choice
when sworn in as a Juror].
Prompted by the officer we said together the "I full name swear/affirm
... ", we then signed individual documents attesting that the Officer
had administered the oath which was witnessed by a SNCO.
So the 'Form of Attestation' (incorporating the Oath of Allegiance)
bore three signatures, nine, the administrator's and the witness's.
So, at long last, yes: 'I bore witness to it'
Shortly afterwards we were given an advance of one days pay for
an AC plonk, an updated Queen's shilling, we were in! Soon, after
tea and biccies, clutching travel warrants and a vague set of clues;-
the party was off _ordered_ to find our 'School of Recruit Training".
BTW, returning to the start of the thread;-
HMG deploys (not employs) HM Forces.
--
Brian
JHall
> ...
> Quite right:
> ...
> with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. [What about time of war
> then I ask?] The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the
> advice of responsible Ministers."
Not to belabour a point but that should read "ministers responsible for
..." not "responsible ministers", unless you are NetspeaKing ministers of
a religion.
Sky King
Stephen Shepherd
Brian Sharrock wrote:
> Older members of the ng may remember the scene in "Albert RN"
> when the 'boffin' character played by James Justice-Robertson{?}
> bridles at the German asking for Name, Rank, and Number and replies;-
> "Officers of the Royal Navy are not numbered!" (or words to
> that effect).
>
And indeed they weren't until circa 1970 if memory serves correctly. I believe
when those who retired before that date contact Centurion Building for matters
relating to pension etc they have to use their old payroll numbers.
C036128F
Stephen Shepherd
JHall wrote:
Direct quote from the website - not my words!
JHall
The proliferation of poor E(english) is definitely one of my peeves
regarding the "net". The outright butchering of our language troubles
me, and about 8 other human beans, greatly and deeply.
Of course a very very great number of english speaking people do not
believe (thru their actions) that they are "responsible" for the words
they use. Then again "responsibility" (and all it encompasses) is so
passe it is a wonder that the word (and all it encompasses) has not been
"dropped" from our language. Waitasec (or for the more informed
waitananonanesecond (a nanonanesecond is one half of a nanosecond)) it
has been dropped from our language along with "having substance" in favour
of the word "hype", itself a derivative of the word hyperbole.
Angilion
<stephen_...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>Angilion wrote:
[..]
>> I believe he is using the language in the same way that it is now used
>> in English courts, in which an areligious oath is referred to as an
>> attestation.
>>
>> Jurors are given the choice of swearing their oath while holding the
>> holy book sacred to them, in which case their deity is deemed to be
>> the ultimate witness to their oath, or attesting their oath before
>> witnesses.
>>
>> You attest an oath on your own honour. You swear an oath on your
>> faith that whatever deity or deities you believe in will punish you if
>> you break it.
>>
>> That's my understanding of the matter, anyway.
>
>From http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page342.asp again,
[..]
>"those for whom it is against their religion to take oaths and those who are
>of no religion, affirm instead of swearing an oath"
>
>From my understanding of that, you swear an oath if you're follow faith and it
>so allows, otherwise you affirm an oath.
>
>So would attesting thus be the same as affirming?
I believe so. Of course, that's just my understanding of what he meant.
I could also be mis-remembering the juror's oath - that might have
mentioned affirming and not attesting.