GW, don't do it man, it's too late for me, save your self 
I suppose that was pretty much the sentimentality I was intending to post originally...but got slightly side tracked by people calling me an a**hole for saying it.
'I'd rather employ a paedophile than ex-forces personnel!'
- Thread starter Blasphemous
- Start date
- Status
GW, don't do it man, it's too late for me, save your self I suppose that was pretty much the sentimentality I was intending to post originally...but got slightly side tracked by people calling me an a**hole for saying it.
I thought the intelligence quotient test was reasonably accurate, seems it cant be trusted.AJStone, frankly I don't give a rats a** what you think about me, you don't know me, you have made a series of assumptions and are now at the point of denying the accuracy of the IQ test because it doesn't fit in with your dogmatic view of me....which you formed in ten minutes while reading my posts on ONE thread.
I have made no personal attacks on you or anyone else in this thread and while I believe you to be wrong in your opinion I haven't thrown insults at you.
You seem to think that your wild guess of an opinion (you have no experience of what you are talking about) is much much more relevent than mine, which although it has limited experience, if supported by quite a lot of evidence.
Either way, what we both think is irrelevent but if i were you I would see someone about the delusional belief you seem to have that if someone disagrees with you, even if there is evidence to support them, you will assume they MUST be stupid. After all, even though you have no evidence or great experience...you couldn't possibly be wrong right? ......
I have made no personal attacks on you or anyone else in this thread and while I believe you to be wrong in your opinion I haven't thrown insults at you.
You seem to think that your wild guess of an opinion (you have no experience of what you are talking about) is much much more relevent than mine, which although it has limited experience, if supported by quite a lot of evidence.
Either way, what we both think is irrelevent but if i were you I would see someone about the delusional belief you seem to have that if someone disagrees with you, even if there is evidence to support them, you will assume they MUST be stupid. After all, even though you have no evidence or great experience...you couldn't possibly be wrong right? ......
I found it strange how the cowerdly judge the brave. Brave being someone that will go forward when scared. They may not take a bullet for joe public but do for their friends.
And on a day when we hear that another two Royal Anglian's have been killed in Helmand we have to read this 5hit from these two.
And on a day when we hear that another two Royal Anglian's have been killed in Helmand we have to read this 5hit from these two.
Ajstoneservices,
I am not for one minute suggesting that the armed forces, and those who serve, are not doing a great job (whatever that job is) . I am responding to the hysteria that errupts when someone suggests that the majority are poorly educated and not solely motivated by patriotic sacrafice.
I thought our armed forces were 'defending our freedom', yet I cannot present an informed opinion without getting battered. How ironic.
Some statistics: Forty per cent of Greater London secondary schools received army visits between September 2008 and April 2009. However, 51 per cent of the most disadvantaged fifth were visited, compared to only 29 per cent of the middle fifth.
So, this leads to the inevitable conculsion that the least educated are the most brave. Right?
I am not for one minute suggesting that the armed forces, and those who serve, are not doing a great job (whatever that job is) . I am responding to the hysteria that errupts when someone suggests that the majority are poorly educated and not solely motivated by patriotic sacrafice.
I thought our armed forces were 'defending our freedom', yet I cannot present an informed opinion without getting battered. How ironic.
Some statistics: Forty per cent of Greater London secondary schools received army visits between September 2008 and April 2009. However, 51 per cent of the most disadvantaged fifth were visited, compared to only 29 per cent of the middle fifth.
So, this leads to the inevitable conculsion that the least educated are the most brave. Right?
So, this leads to the inevitable conculsion that the least educated are the most brave. Right?
The argument presented here by ****zee2k and in part' by you, is that our armed forces are too stupid for any other career is patent 6ollocks. Who otherthan you, is claiming they are all acting out of patrioctic duty?.
The fact that you want to strut around telling us how your "intelligence" sets you apart, makes you the better men, shows the opposite to be true.
Of course I may have you both wrong, perhaps you are both bright and brave and freely spout your crap around places like Colchester, Catterick, Aldershot or some inner city as is your right. At least you have the freedom to say so.
Me? I'm grateful I have the freedom to say you're wrong.
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
Those statistics lead to the conclusion that the army visit schools at a certain time of year. It could be that the schools they don't visit as often don't want them there or haven't got time to cater for such a visit. It could be a personal thing driven by particular Heads. It could be that they are targeting 'disadvantaged' schools because they know the school will take up the offer of a visit as it's a free resource. There could be a number reasons. If you have knowledge of 'why' they visit certain schools why didn't you post it with your statistics? And what exactly does 'intelligence' have to do with being 'brave'?Some statistics: Forty per cent of Greater London secondary schools received army visits between September 2008 and April 2009. However, 51 per cent of the most disadvantaged fifth were visited, compared to only 29 per cent of the middle fifth.
So, this leads to the inevitable conculsion that the least educated are the most brave. Right?
This debate is drifting off topic. What difference it makes what intelligence a soldier may or may not have is totally irrelevant to the OP. The guy in the OP is refusing to recruit ANY 'ex-forces' personnel. He never singled out the 'Army'. When confronted about his stance his spine wouldn't allow him to admit to it, initially denied making such comments. He even concocted some story about an ex-employee hacking into his email account and sending the email. But he never questioned the 'intelligence' of ex-forces personnel instead he compared them ALL to paedophiles. In actual fact, he considers ex-forces personnel are actually 'worse' than a paedophile! As I stated in the OP, he is full entitled to his opinion but to compare ALL military personnel to paedophiles is not only slanderous and economically suicidal for his company, it's also unjustified, uncalled for and disgusting. He hasn't even got the spine to have his corporate signs outside his building now. What does he think will happen? Perhaps a paedophile will pop round asking for a job? He'd take one over an ex-forces personnel remember! Yet he's a confused little man... he states that he'd:
Yet he goes on to say:
So they're all worse than 'ex-drug dealers, convicts and even child molesters' yet your blanket ban on employing them will 'affect innocent as well as guilty people.' Do you actually know WTF you're talking about?
I am slightly confused by your comments. I have not at any point made any reference to my intelligence or bravery (or lack thereof). I am not judging anyone. Nor have I claimed to be a better man.
All I am pointing out is that the majority of army recruits are from the lower end of the education spectrum and more strongly recruited from areas of low employment. Data on recruitment is widely available from many sources; I am merely presenting it.
Blasphemous,
My intelligence and bravery comment was tongue-n-cheek (I hoped the winking smiley would have made that clear). My apologies for not posting the link: Research was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and tropical medicine and most easily accessed here - http://www.informedchoice.org.uk/armyvisitstoschools.pdf
Similar stories in other areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6199274.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6735831.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4354099.ece
And not many schools are open between April and September
To be pedantic: Being a paedophile is no more illegal than being hetro/homosexual. It only becomes illegal once an act is committed. They are no more in control of their desires than a gay guy wishing he was straight (or vice versa).
This forum isn't very friendly.
All I am pointing out is that the majority of army recruits are from the lower end of the education spectrum and more strongly recruited from areas of low employment. Data on recruitment is widely available from many sources; I am merely presenting it.
Blasphemous,
My intelligence and bravery comment was tongue-n-cheek (I hoped the winking smiley would have made that clear). My apologies for not posting the link: Research was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and tropical medicine and most easily accessed here - http://www.informedchoice.org.uk/armyvisitstoschools.pdf
Similar stories in other areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6199274.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6735831.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4354099.ece
And not many schools are open between April and September
To be pedantic: Being a paedophile is no more illegal than being hetro/homosexual. It only becomes illegal once an act is committed. They are no more in control of their desires than a gay guy wishing he was straight (or vice versa).
This forum isn't very friendly.
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
I didn't say it was 'illegal'. It's certainly disgusting and if one of them introduced themselves to me they'd probably regret it for what remained of their life.
As for the forum not being 'very friendly', what is it you find so unfriendly about having your views challenged? Haven't you EVER had an argument with a friend and/or someone you love? Surely their homes are still 'friendly' places?
That final couple of points were general, not aimed at yourself. I am disppointed that having expressed my opinion politely I am told it is "cr*p" and "5hit" and that I strut around telling everyone how intelligent I am which "proves the opposite". Just a bit OTT I feel.
How can you attack someone for having feelings they do not control? Ok, for another thread perhaps!!
Right, I'm off to strangle a labrador puppy. (Hell, I can't get anymore unpopular
)
How can you attack someone for having feelings they do not control? Ok, for another thread perhaps!!
Right, I'm off to strangle a labrador puppy. (Hell, I can't get anymore unpopular
)
no, it shows that the army targets the least privaliged kids knowing that the army will be on a short list of viable options to them..
they know that the kids are not as likely to go to college or to travel the world as the richer kids are so they offer it up as an oportunity to see the world and learn a trade..
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
Yep it's definitely a totally different subject matter and should be started in another thread. Are you going to start that one rolling?
You previously mentioned you are intelligent, well, it seems that may not be the case.
You are describing an army from a long time ago. Not the modern day army.
1. You knew a guy who couldn't spell nation, you can't spell piece, as in piece of paper. We will leave that one alone for now.
2. Cannot be classed as an army any more due to the size of it. Too small.
3. The army is far from being the 'dregs of society'. They are generally intelligent and brave people. Dregs of society are child molesters, murderers, theives, unintelligent people who think they know what they are talking about, but really don't, etc etc.
4. Mercenaries do not mind who they fight for, not just the money side of things. Our forces do not fight for the highest bidder. As you are probably well aware, that is not the case.
5. You are correct in your assumption that forces people wouldn't do it if they weren't being paid. But why does it have to be mentioned? It is irrelevant. Surely 99% of workers in this country are the same? I would assume, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but there are probably very few volunteers around these days. If they weren't paid to do it, then you may have had to do your stint too. And your (not just you) comments on the pay structure are not too bad a guess. However, you failed to talk about how much the majority of the army get paid. It is actually very competitive compared to civvy street. Probably a lot more than you realise. Feel free to ask me for some examples if you wish.
6. The Armed Forces don't take on anyone. That is far from the truth. Most parts of the forces are difficult to get into, and many fail. Hence the reasons that recruitment has fallen below par in recent years, and in some cases, standards have had to be dropped to meet demand.
Rant over. I don't confess to know everything, but do get annoyed when people like yourself, ill-informed in certain areas, feel they need to preach and tell the rest of us how it is.
There is a very good chance that I wouldn't feel confident enough to argue / discuss certain aspects of your professional expertise, so please do the same in future.
You are describing an army from a long time ago. Not the modern day army.
1. You knew a guy who couldn't spell nation, you can't spell piece, as in piece of paper. We will leave that one alone for now.
2. Cannot be classed as an army any more due to the size of it. Too small.
3. The army is far from being the 'dregs of society'. They are generally intelligent and brave people. Dregs of society are child molesters, murderers, theives, unintelligent people who think they know what they are talking about, but really don't, etc etc.
4. Mercenaries do not mind who they fight for, not just the money side of things. Our forces do not fight for the highest bidder. As you are probably well aware, that is not the case.
5. You are correct in your assumption that forces people wouldn't do it if they weren't being paid. But why does it have to be mentioned? It is irrelevant. Surely 99% of workers in this country are the same? I would assume, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but there are probably very few volunteers around these days. If they weren't paid to do it, then you may have had to do your stint too. And your (not just you) comments on the pay structure are not too bad a guess. However, you failed to talk about how much the majority of the army get paid. It is actually very competitive compared to civvy street. Probably a lot more than you realise. Feel free to ask me for some examples if you wish.
6. The Armed Forces don't take on anyone. That is far from the truth. Most parts of the forces are difficult to get into, and many fail. Hence the reasons that recruitment has fallen below par in recent years, and in some cases, standards have had to be dropped to meet demand.
Rant over. I don't confess to know everything, but do get annoyed when people like yourself, ill-informed in certain areas, feel they need to preach and tell the rest of us how it is.
There is a very good chance that I wouldn't feel confident enough to argue / discuss certain aspects of your professional expertise, so please do the same in future.
- Status
Similar threads
- Lincsbodger
- General Discussion
