As stated earlier, I’m in favour of the change in policy (especially for the Army, where there’s a precedent from Victorian times): I just don’t believe the nonsense about it making a difference to recruitment and retention. If someone’s that precious about their looks, they’re not going to put them (along with their health, mental well-being, and life) on the line for others.
1 Like
Seems a hell of an uninformed supposition?
2 Likes
As a reminder we don’t accept swearing, even if you try and cover it with emojis or asterisks.
Yeh, you’re just plain wrong there.
There are a lot of people who sport tattoos who would disagree with you too.
To say nothing of the Sikhs.
Again, why they want the beard or tattoo doesn’t really matter, it’s not for you to decide if it’s a good enough reason.
2 Likes
Not relevant to beards and covered by a different section of the regulations.
Who already had an exemption.
Opinions are allowed.
2 Likes
It is absolutely relevant. The fact you don’t see any connection is odd.
1 Like
Please explain to me then how a permanent (I.e. not easily or cheaply removed) body modification with its own topic-specific paragraph(s) in regulations is the same as non permanent hair growth which is covered by separate, topic-specific paragraph(s) in the regulations.
2 Likes
The fact they’re covered by separate regulations is immaterial to whether or not one thinks they should be permissible when in uniform.
Obviously they will be covered by separate regulations, but that’s not really relevant to the point I was making.
The reason I lump them together is because they are both very visible aspects of a person’s presentation. One being permanent and the other not is also not really relevant here.
They are things the service might choose or not choose to tolerate.
1 Like
The British Army and RAF should have held a referendum amongst their personnel as to whether beards should be permitted whilst in uniform. That would have been the final say on the matter, from those whose train set it is.
This would never have happened, because the United Kingdom is not a complete democracy (unelected Upper House, no Proportional Representation, referendums called by the PM rather than the public, calling General Elections whenever the PM feels like it, rather than fixed terms etc), so why should those who defend the country have any say in their conditions of service apart from voting with their feet?
This topic seems to be divided amongst generational lines: those serving like beards, retired fossils think they look crap in general, and with Service Dress uniforms in particular. Long hair and military headdress definitely looks truly awful to us dinosaurs - think 1970s NATO conscripts and Hairhead Platoon CCF detachments.
But then army Pioneer SNCOs would look crap without beards: they need them for the complete package along with the axes and aprons, and general air of authoritative trade competence.
However, 1970/80s military moustaches also seem to be making a comeback: from the period we actually used to win our wars, and regimental photographs looked like Freddy Mercury Fan Club conventions. Hopefully that’ll start the Chaos Theory ripple effect, and thereby improve the nation’s international standing in that direction.
Strangely enough, beards don’t seem to be as popular within the Royal Navy - their traditional and rightful home within the services - as they are in the RAF these days, and even in old photos they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Respirators still give a good seal even with beards according to an anecdote I have: a mate of mine went out to Kuwait on the eve of Op Telic, and he issued and fitted S10 masks to Kuwaiti soldiers with full beards with no loss of seal around the face.
The Imperial German Army of WWI demanded their soldiers to shave off beards and most of their moustaches to get a good seal with their close-fitting respirators: hence the toothbrush style moustache coming into fashion for the late- and post WWI- period. Also used by a certain well-known historical character of the day to show the electorate he had been a Frontkampfer. Before 1915 the armies of the German Empire looked like hipster conventions.
1 Like
That is almost literally what happend with the army. They had a survey asking what soldiers and officers wanted. They overwhelmingly responded that they wanted the policy to change to allow beards!
7 Likes
The Army did, peeps wanted beards
3 Likes
In that case, it’s the last word on the matter. Does that mean the British Army is more democratic than the UK Government? I thought they were here to defend Democracy, not practice it. 
…apparently in the early 2000s, the RAF asked our opinion whether we wanted the Pay-as-you-dine system brought into our messes, but I didn’t receive my ballot paper for that one. I’d have voted No for it: it emptied the JRM at RAF Leuchars when I served there for my last year. 
If memory serves, they asked whether we all wanted to pay the daily rate. When the crusties of the day said “no”, conveniently forgetting they had once benefitted from the excellent meals that resulted, no one was then asked what they’d like instead.
Unless like you, I also missed that questionnaire…
I have to take issue with some of this. No argument on the House of Lords (other than to point out that replacing hereditary peers with politically appointed life peers was no more democratic) but PR is a system whereby nobody gets the government they voted for (at least our system generally delivers a government that around 40 to 45% of electors voted for), referenda are actually brought into effect by acts of parliament: not just the PM, and fixed terms are a terrible idea that led to situations like the zombie parliament of 2017 to 2019 — where no party had a majority but an election could not be called until the opposition agreed to it — and the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, who was never even elected as VP.
1 Like
The House of Lords can only delay government legislation, but has to give way to the elected house in the end. If you have an elected upper house as you do in the USA, France etc, if each house is held by opposing parties and by dint of being elected then legislative deadlock occurs.
If you want PR, just look at Germany, Holland, Belgium etc for the problems of forming a functional government, the same problem that Cameron faced in 2010. A minor party may at anytime collapse the government. A minority government may govern alone but is at risk of collapse or there is a ‘confidence and supply’ agreement in place. That is usually predicated on an agreement on a government budget, which is usually the dealbreaker. A government who cannot get a budget through the HoC by default must fall.
There have only been three referenda that I can remember, 1975, to remain in the EEC approx 2012 to change the voting system and in 2016 to leave the eu. The latter one was ratified MPs on a 2:1 majority, then by political Machiavellianism that they could use Parliament and various wrecking amendments to overturn the original result in particular the Benn Act.
Then there is Carter, Clinton, Reagan, GW Bush, Obama who had never been VP either, yet were elected President.
3 Likes
#sundaypolitics
Beards are political
A mere digression.
Beards can be a reason for divorce, or at least radio silence until SWMBO is happy. WOs, they are more easily dealt with.
If i shaved id probs end up single, she seems to be quite adament i must remain bearded
1 Like