Why don't they give the army something different to wear to the olympics? Watch

green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by Clip)
Assuming that the Army would agree to introducing a special new casual dress scale just for the Olympics (for no tangible benefit), and that such clothing had been bought ahead of time in sufficient quantity to kit everyone out - for every person like yourself that thinks this is a good idea, I can guarantee that there will be 10 people banging on about what a waste of money it was, and how it could have been spent on hospitals and schools instead.
Im not necessarily suggesting casual. Im more thinking a return to the smartness that was sacrificed for camouflage now that they dont really need camouflage.

Presumably those 10 people also think buckingham palace should be turned into flats and other symbols of the nations wealth such as the crown jewels should be given to the homeless.

The moment when the worlds watching us isnt the time to decide that we cant afford to dress our soldiers for the part.
0
reply
Toaster Leavings
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by green.tea)
Im not necessarily suggesting casual. Im more thinking a return to the smartness that was sacrificed for camouflage now that they dont really need camouflage.

Presumably those 10 people also think buckingham palace should be turned into flats and other symbols of the nations wealth such as the crown jewels should be given to the homeless.

The moment when the worlds watching us isnt the time to decide that we cant afford to dress our soldiers for the part.
I agree that the official British army dress uniform (which I thought every soldier owned, I guess I am wrong) would have looked much better.

However, they were called in too late for that sort of planning.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
You are asking a lot to ask soldiers to carry out working duties whilst wearing ceremonial uniforms. No2s and similar stuff are not meant for practical duties like stagging on, driving around or scanning bags etc. They are for looking ceremonial.

You also fail to appreciate just how much work goes into making a soldier look smart for a few hours of guard duty. You would be asking telling these guys to work around the clock and spend all their free time polishing their kit - just so a few people think that they look smarter.
1
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by Jack93o)
I'm having to repeat myself because I've been misrepresented time and time again, with Drewski being an obvious example of someone doing that, saying that I apparently said something, which I never did.

Is like debating with a brick wall? I don't know, you're always bound to have this scenario where both sides don't agree in a discussion, thats just politics.

I mentioned adaptability for the job on hand because I think that a non-army uniform would be more welcoming for visitors (comfort is not the real issue here, but I've just added it as an after thought) which I've said was raised in the media recently and also in the 2008 beijing olympics, thats my opinion, I've already given my explanation for it, and if its still not supported by people like yourself then fair enough, I can live with that.



Well you're speaking from the perspective of a tourist. I'm arguing with only the interests of the olympic hosting country in mind.
You seem to be mistaking people not agreeing with you to people not listening with you.

- Will the military attire frighten visitors or not be seen as welcoming? You think so. The majority of people in the thread disagree. Neither party, without running an opinion poll, can say for certain, however I have seen fairly good arguments to say that it isn't 'non-welcoming'. If the army should adapt or not is all based on this point - I am sure if they really wanted to, they could easily look like civilians, however so far you haven't managed to convince people they need to - as all you have is your opinion and possibly mentions on TV - but as that is only a vague mention, we can't tell who said it, context, etc etc.

(Original post by Jack93o)
I never argued for new military uniforms to be made, that would defeat the purpose of giving them a different uniform.

The soldiers will be doing security work, not fighting on the battlefields. A decent polo t-shirt/long sleeve with matching trousers/shorts would be fine for what their job during these games. I can see that having the G4S logo isn't right, which is why ideally I think a new batch of uniforms should be made a while back (or take the existing G4S stock and remove the logo) when it was first realised that G4S failed in their promise to provide enough workers.
They are not fighting on the battlefields, they are however defending an important area from possible enemy attack. The attack that the soldiers on the ground are going to have to deal with may not be a rocket or similar, but a small explosive device / etc is still an attack. Even if we ignore foreign attack, then the soldiers are on guard duty, defending against smaller civil disturbances to keep order.

However, in any way, are they doing something which isn't something a soldier can do? We are not asking them to go and play tennis, or to mow the lawns.


Your argument is like saying when the fire service go on strike and the army take over, then they should wear non-army clothing so that old ladies won't get frightened if the army come to put out a fire down the road.
0
reply
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Clip)
You are asking a lot to ask soldiers to carry out working duties whilst wearing ceremonial uniforms. No2s and similar stuff are not meant for practical duties like stagging on, driving around or scanning bags etc. They are for looking ceremonial.

You also fail to appreciate just how much work goes into making a soldier look smart for a few hours of guard duty. You would be asking telling these guys to work around the clock and spend all their free time polishing their kit - just so a few people think that they look smarter.
People in various jobs can manage to keep their shoes and suits neat and tidy without a huge hassle. I see no reason why the uniforms need be higher maintenance than that. Im sure with modern materials we could make something low maintenance, functional and smart.
0
reply
standreams
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by Jack93o)
Wait, who said they'd be wearing pink? and whats wrong with looking as non-threatening as airport security staff?[/B]
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

They are wearing pink lanyards.
There is nothing wrong with looking as non-threatening as airport security staff. That was precisely my point.


Seriously, you haven't even been to the Olympic Park and yet you are making comments about what they are/are not wearing and what image they are presenting?

It is clear that the vast majority of people here disagree with you.

Also:

"The only major problem I see with my suggestion is like you said, a logistical one, if I had to take a guess I would still assume its possible to get these new uniforms in time even if the decision was taken just weeks ago, but I'm obviously not an expert on these things. "

Evidently not.
0
reply
standreams
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by green.tea)
Im not suggesting civilian clothing. I think that when the army is faced with a new task, such as fighting in the desert, they do do in a uniform designed for the task. Protecting the public from terrorist attacks at high profile events at home is a new element to their job which requires them to be in a new setting and they should have a uniform designed for the setting just as they would any other setting.
I was not suggesting that you personally were asking them to wear civilian clothing.

What you are advocating is inventing a new, very costly, uniform for a very specific task which the military will perform very rarely.

This strikes me as an extremely wasteful use of public resources.

In principle, I have no problem with your idea. But in the real world, it makes no sense.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by green.tea)
People in various jobs can manage to keep their shoes and suits neat and tidy without a huge hassle. I see no reason why the uniforms need be higher maintenance than that. Im sure with modern materials we could make something low maintenance, functional and smart.
Not to the required standards, they can't. Fact is, most people look like an utter sack of spuds. Most people don't polish their shoes every day, most people do little more than show an iron to their shirts. What you're talking about is just not a reality.
0
reply
CherryCherryBoomBoom
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
My guess is that the army uniform might look quite threatening to any potential criminals, so then why change it? After all, we all know how tough soldiers are
0
reply
Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by rmhumphries)
You seem to be mistaking people not agreeing with you to people not listening with you.

- Will the military attire frighten visitors or not be seen as welcoming? You think so. The majority of people in the thread disagree. Neither party, without running an opinion poll, can say for certain, however I have seen fairly good arguments to say that it isn't 'non-welcoming'. If the army should adapt or not is all based on this point - I am sure if they really wanted to, they could easily look like civilians, however so far you haven't managed to convince people they need to - as all you have is your opinion and possibly mentions on TV - but as that is only a vague mention, we can't tell who said it, context, etc etc.
Have I?

Just look at some of Drewski's posts. He said that I apparently made a comment (and then goes on to criticize me for it) - which I never did, that is fact, go check it out for yourself if you don't think I'm telling the truth. He's done this twice now. Theres no uncertainty on my part here.

Fair enough theres disagreement and I accept that as it just comes down to differing opinions, but theres also blatant misrepresentations of my argument and I've simply pointed that out. I don't see any ambiguity with what I've done.


(Original post by rmhumphries)


They are not fighting on the battlefields, they are however defending an important area from possible enemy attack. The attack that the soldiers on the ground are going to have to deal with may not be a rocket or similar, but a small explosive device / etc is still an attack. Even if we ignore foreign attack, then the soldiers are on guard duty, defending against smaller civil disturbances to keep order.

However, in any way, are they doing something which isn't something a soldier can do? We are not asking them to go and play tennis, or to mow the lawns.


Your argument is like saying when the fire service go on strike and the army take over, then they should wear non-army clothing so that old ladies won't get frightened if the army come to put out a fire down the road.
My argument is that for a one-off event like the olympics (the biggest global event in the world), every effort should be made to present the most friendly and welcoming environment to foreign visitors. I think giving soldiers something more appropriate to wear (as opposed to their usual camouflage combat attire) is something that should be done as part of the overall effect to show our country in the best possible light, and at the same time this will have no effect on their ability to do the job well. Clearly your example is not even remotely comparable to the olympics.
0
reply
Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#111
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by standreams)
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

They are wearing pink lanyards.
There is nothing wrong with looking as non-threatening as airport security staff. That was precisely my point.


Seriously, you haven't even been to the Olympic Park and yet you are making comments about what they are/are not wearing and what image they are presenting?
No need to get into a hissy fit, I just misinterpreted what you wrote in that one sentence from having momentarily misread it. If it makes you feel any better, I apologise for that.

I haven't been to the olympic park yet, but believe it or not, you don't have to have been there to know what army uniforms look like, I've seen clips and pictures of soldiers in the park on several news channel as well. I also remember the negative publicity from the last olympics when the same issue was raised.


(Original post by standreams)
It is clear that the vast majority of people here disagree with you.
Talk about stating the obvious, its already been mentioned a number of times here by people like you. I don't know, do you feel more secure about yourself just knowing that there are other people who share your opinion?

Personally I'm comfortable with myself, I'm in the minority but thats just a bit of individualism for you, I'm sure most people have views which go contrary to that of the majority. The validity of an opinion is not necessarily judged by whether its supported by the most people, so meh :dontknow:

(Original post by standreams)

Also:

"The only major problem I see with my suggestion is like you said, a logistical one, if I had to take a guess I would still assume its possible to get these new uniforms in time even if the decision was taken just weeks ago, but I'm obviously not an expert on these things. "

Evidently not.
Oh clearly you're an expert on logistics and manufacturing is it? Or do you possess some sort of magical foresight?

Hey, I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, but at least I'm not trying to make myself look bigger by making bold factual statements about something that I'm not totally sure about, hence the ''if I had to take a guess'' comment, but you probably looked right over that in blind rage at the mere sight of someone disagreeing with you.
1
reply
cid
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
Sorry Sapper Bloggs, i know you've just come off a 12 hour stag, but make sure you whiten your belt, iron your shirt and suit, run some tape over your hat, polish your brass and bull up those boots... hmm that polish is pretty cracked, someone step on your boot? Probably best to scrape the boot off and start from scratch eh?

It would certainly be a good way for the MoD to cut the size of the army as the 3000 + troops scramble over each other to sign off.
0
reply
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by cid)
Sorry Sapper Bloggs, i know you've just come off a 12 hour stag, but make sure you whiten your belt, iron your shirt and suit, run some tape over your hat, polish your brass and bull up those boots... hmm that polish is pretty cracked, someone step on your boot? Probably best to scrape the boot off and start from scratch eh?

It would certainly be a good way for the MoD to cut the size of the army as the 3000 + troops scramble over each other to sign off.
Could just get it dry cleaned. Im surprised the army dont have their own dry cleaners. Would be a good idea. Rather than 100 soldiers spending 5% of their time cleaning you could have 95 soldiers and 5 cleaners. That way the the cleaning would be better as it'd be the the sole focus of the training.
1
reply
standreams
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by Jack93o)
No need to get into a hissy fit, I just misinterpreted what you wrote in that one sentence from having momentarily misread it. If it makes you feel any better, I apologise for that.

I haven't been to the olympic park yet, but believe it or not, you don't have to have been there to know what army uniforms look like, I've seen clips and pictures of soldiers in the park on several news channel as well. I also remember the negative publicity from the last olympics when the same issue was raised.




Talk about stating the obvious, its already been mentioned a number of times here by people like you. I don't know, do you feel more secure about yourself just knowing that there are other people who share your opinion?

Personally I'm comfortable with myself, I'm in the minority but thats just a bit of individualism for you, I'm sure most people have views which go contrary to that of the majority. The validity of an opinion is not necessarily judged by whether its supported by the most people, so meh :dontknow:



Oh clearly you're an expert on logistics and manufacturing is it? Or do you possess some sort of magical foresight?

Hey, I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, but at least I'm not trying to make myself look bigger by making bold factual statements about something that I'm not totally sure about, hence the ''if I had to take a guess'' comment, but you probably looked right over that in blind rage at the mere sight of someone disagreeing with you.
Oh dear. No need to throw your toys out of the pram or to make yourself into a martyr. You have been whining here about your posts being misinterpreted, the least you can do is therefore to have the decency to ensure that you don't 'momentarily misread' the comments of others. Apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people and your credibility will improve. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Of course the validity of an opinion does not in any way correlated to the number of people who hold that opinion but your statements here have been incredibly naive and show a lack of knowledge of the practicalities and intricacies of the situation. For example, you have completely overlooked the fact that the Navy personnel at the Olympic site (of whom there are many) are not wearing camouflage.

There are obvious differences between posting Chinese soldiers at the Beijing Olympics and British soldiers at the London games due to the vastly differing social and political contexts involved. The comparison isn't even worth making.

You don't have to be an expert in logistics to realise that what you are proposing is completely unworkable, unrealistic and unnecessary. It just requires a modicum of common sense. As it happens however, I do have some experience of working in a logistic and event management field so I am not pulling the statement out of a lateral orifice.

That's me done. I don't see coherent debate here as being very likely.
2
reply
standreams
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by green.tea)
Could just get it dry cleaned. Im surprised the army dont have their own dry cleaners. Would be a good idea. Rather than 100 soldiers spending 5% of their time cleaning you could have 95 soldiers and 5 cleaners. That way the the cleaning would be better as it'd be the the sole focus of the training.
I'm sure someone with military experience will come in with a better statement about why this might be/might not be a good idea, but from my point of view:

The Army (as with all government departments and organisations) is going through a period of huge budget cuts. Thousands are being made redundant. Those who remain will (presumably) be those who are most needed to have an effective army. The Army have got on perfectly fine without dry cleaners for years. Are you going to make 5% of the current serving soldiers redundant in order to make way for the dry cleaning troops? Or are you going to spend thousands of £ on retraining serving soldiers (medics, logisticians, linguists, drivers) etc to do these dry cleaning duties which are apparently so needed? You'd have to employ training staff too of course. Or are you going to employ an extra 5% of new soldiers to fill these positions? If so, how are these going to be paid for and how are you going to justify the redundancies which have been made while taking on thousands of new dry cleaning troops? Where is the money for the dry cleaning equipment going to come from? Will there be equipment at every single base in the UK and abroad? Of course, you'll need to train maintenance staff to service the equipment too. Are these going to be employed at the expense of those nurses, logisticians, medics and linguists? Or are you thinking the work will be contracted out?

I am sure that if it were a viable option in terms of time/cost saving benefits, then the MOD would have considered it. I am sure also that there are less tangible reasons why soldiers have traditionally been expected to do this work themselves (discipline, timekeeping, pride in their appearance, creating a sense of cohesion etc.) which would probably be taken into account.
1
reply
Red Richie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by clarusblue)
Would there even be time to arrange/make enough uniforms at such short notice?
Technically possible within a monh's time, is it realistic? don't know. I was reading case study of Nike and their manufacturing process in A2 geography, they could churn out thousands of shoes in just a couple of days time from two of their factories in China.
0
reply
rock_climber86
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Jack93o)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18966360

With more troops being deployed, the army will have a very large presence in and around the olympic park/venues. So why not give them something different to wear instead of their usual army camouflage attire?

That way, they'll blend right in to the olympics and they'll look alot more friendly to people. I was just hearing a while ago on the news that there were concerns that the olympic park will look too militarized because of these troops, so why not just dress them up to look exactly like the other G4S security staff? You'd barely be able to tell them apart. Seems like a no brainer to me.
they are the army - why should they pretend to be something else? They are proud to be part of the army and rightly so! Let them wear their uniforms with pride I say! Curses on anyone who thinks they should dress down to tracksuits and tshirts or whatever was proposed earlier this week by some numpty politicians!
0
reply
ProStacker
  • CV Helper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
I cannot believe that this thread is still running. Those that say the military uniform appears threatening to visitors are just projecting their own perceptions upon this. Most other countries in the world have militaries with a greater public presence than our own, so they are not bothered in the slightest. In Italy, most of the police are actually part of the military anyway. There was once a time when British troops travelled in uniform at all times. Most visitors care not that there is a uniformed presence and you are projecting your preconceptions onto them.
0
reply
Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#119
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by standreams)
Oh dear. No need to throw your toys out of the pram or to make yourself into a martyr. You have been whining here about your posts being misinterpreted, the least you can do is therefore to have the decency to ensure that you don't 'momentarily misread' the comments of others. Apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people and your credibility will improve. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Of course the validity of an opinion does not in any way correlated to the number of people who hold that opinion but your statements here have been incredibly naive and show a lack of knowledge of the practicalities and intricacies of the situation. For example, you have completely overlooked the fact that the Navy personnel at the Olympic site (of whom there are many) are not wearing camouflage.

There are obvious differences between posting Chinese soldiers at the Beijing Olympics and British soldiers at the London games due to the vastly differing social and political contexts involved. The comparison isn't even worth making.

You don't have to be an expert in logistics to realise that what you are proposing is completely unworkable, unrealistic and unnecessary. It just requires a modicum of common sense. As it happens however, I do have some experience of working in a logistic and event management field so I am not pulling the statement out of a lateral orifice.

That's me done. I don't see coherent debate here as being very likely.
On the whole, I don't think I've posted anything particularly outlandish. The only major objective fault is the issue with getting the uniforms ready in 3-4 weeks time. Of course common sense would say its not ideal and I accept that, is it definitely 100% not possible? I don't know because I'm not a expert on clothing manufacturing nor have I had any significant experience in this field, but apparently you have vague experience of 'logistics and event management' and you're somehow able to extrapolate your knowledge from this loosely related work (somehow events are similar to clothing manufacturing) to arrive to a definitive answer. Sure lets all take you're word then.

And lol at calling me a hypocrite, I misread one sentence in a thread of 6 pages with long replies to my posts and I even apologized for it. If you think thats the same as me being repeatedly misrepresented and then criticized for it by the same people without any apology or acknowledgement whatsoever, then quite clearly you're letting your own personal bias get the better of your judgement, oh well let the mindless blind hate flow :lol:
1
reply
standreams
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
(Original post by Jack93o)
On the whole, I don't think I've posted anything particularly outlandish. The only major objective fault is the issue with getting the uniforms ready in 3-4 weeks time. Of course common sense would say its not ideal and I accept that, is it definitely 100% not possible? I don't know because I'm not a expert on clothing manufacturing nor have I had any significant experience in this field, but apparently you have vague experience of 'logistics and event management' and you're somehow able to extrapolate your knowledge from this loosely related work (somehow events are similar to clothing manufacturing) to arrive to a definitive answer. Sure lets all take you're word then.

And lol at calling me a hypocrite, I misread one sentence in a thread of 6 pages with long replies to my posts and I even apologized for it. If you think thats the same as me being repeatedly misrepresented and then criticized for it by the same people without any apology or acknowledgement whatsoever, then quite clearly you're letting your own personal bias get the better of your judgement, oh well let the mindless blind hate flow :lol:
Hilarious. And somewhat disturbing.

Your initial question, posed one day before the start of the games, in all its naive glory:

"so why not just dress them up to look exactly like the other G4S security staff? You'd barely be able to tell them apart. Seems like a no brainer to me. "

Hmm...

As for the third highlighted statement- are you seriously suggesting that your proposal would be a 'clothing manufacturing' issue and not one of design, distribution and resource allocation? I despair. We obviously seem to be inhabiting somewhat different realities. Your utopia does sound quite a nice, uncomplicated place to live though.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (94)
24.54%
No (289)
75.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise