If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
"Military recruitment" banned on campus
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Here's the Sun's take,
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article889117.ece
it was reported first in the Evening Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23450359-details/Students+ban+the+military/article.do
Thoughts?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article889117.ece
it was reported first in the Evening Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23450359-details/Students+ban+the+military/article.do
Thoughts?
0
Comments
I suppose it's fine to ban the Army from recruiting whilst leaving Guardian-waving liberals to canvass and recruit left right and centre...
On a side note, I went to the Houses of Parliament today for a beer in one of the members' bars with my friend Malcolm. Nice to see where our tax pounds are going to
Not literally, I hope.
I agree though. It's the worst type of support of freedom of speech only when what is being said is something you agree with. Do they feel the need to protect fellow students from joining the armed forces?
all urf fault/
For the sake of factual accuracy, it was a very close vote and arguably did not reflect the opinions of the student population at large (General Meetings usually attract people with a vested interest in the things being discussed, rather than a cross-section of the student body).
Also, the motion only disallows OTC (etc.) from taking part in the "Freshers Faire" [sic], there is no blanket ban or no-platform policy.
It did strike me that we shouldn't punish the military for Labour policy any more than we should ban civil service recruitment on campus - they don't make the policy themselves; no one in the army decided they were long overdue a desert holiday, they are bound by the policy of the government.
:yes:
Yep. Especially when you consider the liberal values UCL is supposed to hold and the foundations it was built on.
The military were originally banned because of homophobia - although the ban has now been overturned... Tbh big deal really, careers stuff falls way more under the University - all this means is the Army not being able to pay the Union for a bit of advertising space - a few posters...
linkage - it's been changed to all armed forces recruitment
hmm bit of a mixed one, the should be allowed to advertise recruitment and the armed forces are exempt from lots of employment legislation like on nationality age etc so you can't expect them to follow UCL discrimination policy, especially as the organisations in questions have removed lots of the ponitlessly discriminatory things like on women, gays etc
the other thing to remember is to avoid the politicisation of the armed forces, they just follow the governments instructions so these organisations are not to blame in themselves since they don't force people to join them and peopel can join what they want
Quel fucking surprise. Such preach freedom of speech when they feel discriminated against but fight tooth and nail to stop anyone else having a say.
Recruit for what? Canvas for Greenpeace donations?
Although since you raise it, the organisations (albeit necessarily) do not conform to the Union's equal opps policy.
er not all 'liberals' are like that - i for one don't mind them advertising even if i don't like it, though to be honest the army etc do a better job advertising to dead in the ground desperate people on buses quite frankly rather than universities where financial firms advertise heavily
They are recruiting officers from Universities - that's why they call them Officer Training Corps.
Oh fuck off you preaching cunt. Kelvin MacKenzie should have been flayed alive for what he did to Liverpool.
As for the "ban", I think its ridiculous but the effect will be limited. UCL's careers service still has the links with the OTC.
Having said that, though, saying the Army was just following orders in Iraq and absolving them of blame is wrong. Every single serviceman chose to fight there and as such they are personally and collectively responsible for what happened.
I don't think the armed forces should be allowed to advertise anywhere until they tell the truth. It isn't a wheeze around the world, its lying your life on the line to protect Tony Blair's pension and speaking bookings in the US.
Agree with that;
Double agree with that.
Hey Kermit,
you seem to have a real problem with anyone that seems to serve in the arm forces, my guess is because your just a little fat man without the balls to fight for your country,
and i would say until you have got the balls to pick up a rifle and stand in line with real men in a real gunfight you keep you little fucking mouth shut about things you know nothing about,
the reason our Arm forces are the best in the world is because they are trained to do what ever is ordered to them, saying " Saying the Army was just following orders in Iraq and absolving them of blame is wrong. Every single serviceman chose to fight there and as such they are personally and collectively responsible for what happened." is the biggest load of shit i have ever heard, they have been told buy the government what they need to do and they have done it well.
the government chosen by the people of the UK to make the choices people don’t want to make themselves.
What about both sides of the military covenant? - side 1 being that service personnel offer two things when they join up, as you have observed. They offer to put themselves in harms way, but also to sacrifice a little of their own self determination to a greater whole (at least this is the idea).
Side 2 of that is that those of use who remain in civil society who still retain our democratic right to discuss, debate, dissent and protest need to make sure that they are not put in harms way unless absolutely necessary, and also that their needs are met both while serving and afterward.
They are fighting to defend a democracy that gives people the right to question, challenge and debate - that includes going against the exercise of power in cases such as the invasion of Iraq.
Stating that governments are elected to make decisions others 'don't want to make' runs contrary to the evidence here - the British people made the greatest single show of civil protest in their history against the Iraq invasion - would you class that as 'making decisions they don't want to'.
On a separate point; Kermit I often agree with alot of the things you have to say and you make alot of good points but do you have to be so abusive ? It doesn't help your often eloquently made points when you do this.