The comments in the article are 90% RAF bashing, “when I was in” and what happened to freedom of speech.
1 Like
I think not in this case per se - the original article was in the express which makes the mail look like the guardian.
A lot of the tabloids steal each others stories so sometimes the trick is to find out who first reported it.
The admirals comments are reasonable in context but just because he’s reasonable here doesn’t mean he always reasonable & the aim of the price may have been to normalise & rationale his character rather than bash the RAF itself.
1 Like
Which is what drives their advertising revenue.
1 Like
He was suspended as candidate in March 2026 after comparing members of a Jewish neighbourhood watch group with “Islamists on horseback”
Yeah thats my guess too, he isn’t a fan of “others” by the looks of it. It’s in his best intrest to try defend this behaviour in the younger generations
1 Like
As the only(?) cadet mentioned, it wouldn’t be the most sensible thing to do to go running to MSM about the circumstances! Same for any parents potentially involved.
1 Like
MSM as in Main-stream Media?
If you are an Officer Cadet getting Mama and Papa to fight your disciplineries for you maybe Officer wasn’t the right career for you
2 Likes
Looking into it the original journalists where mark Nicol and david Jarvis
https://muckrack.com/mark-nicol/articles
https://muckrack.com/david-jarvis/articles
But one of the instructors could have to get a bung or someone has been over talkative in the bar.
Then the Ocdts parents (if the cadet was relatively young) would probably wade into the college about protecting their child.
Well, I would envisage that all the cadets on the same cse would have been aware of some of the circumstances, so the net widens.
Unless things have changed drastically, there were few living-in instructors - & time available for the bar was quite limited - writing up reports or lesson prep. There may have been a “all sqns” notification to advise them of the basic circumstances, & reminding them that contact with the MSM should only be via the official media routes.
As to the suggestion of taking a bung, well, that would be the end of someone’s career if discovered. Any suggestions of wrong doing or poor integrity (by one of the instructors) were investigated very quickly. I took over a DIOT admin / org role after being a DIOT flt cdr, which included being the flt cdr of all cadets on Medical Holding Flt. Along with another (random) flt cdr, as a witness, I inspected their accommodation one morning (it was a separate block from main sqns). As their previous flt cdr had been absent (posted) for a couple of weeks, I though I might find something…
They must have had the party of all parties the night before! The block was a tip - empty beer cans & wine bottles everywhere, & even female undergarments scattered around!! 
I checked with the doc that supervised med holding cadets & also the Phys Ed section. Yep, they were all fit, working up to rejoining the next sqn in about 3-4 wks. I passed a message to the nominated cadet flt ldr to have them all paraded for a quick chat by Whittle Hall at lunch time.
They paraded, about 18 of them. I introduced myself & checked their uniform standards - very sloppy. Then I mentioned the block inspection. Chins hit the floor. Two weeks of jankers awarded. That meant uniform inspection both first thing in the morinng & in the evening. As I lived locally, I came in each evening to do the inspections too.
Now the point of being checked on wrong-doing, etc; I had notified the DIOT wg cdr, he agreed 100%. Less than 2 hrs later, I had a 'phone call from the Cmdt’s office - was I bullying the cadets?!?! I found out later that the wg cdr hadn’t pushed things on, but someone clearly had! Anyone, I ran through the details with the Cmdt’s PSO, yep, all was good.
I made them stew for 10 days or so, & as their standards had improved immensely, I was able to curtail their jankers so they got a weekend off (with a very strong warning about no lapsing) & yes, I also inspected their block on the Mon afterwards. They had got the message. All squeaky clean. 
I’m sorry but this whole thing, and the attitudes of a reasonable minority of Europeans, are really starting to smell of the same stink the Nazis gave off in the early days. And I don’t mean that lightly.
Blaming Islam on our own economical, social/societal and political problems is literally what the Nazi party was doing with Jews. Blame them, ramp up support for that targeted blame to the point that it becomes normalized.
There are people in this thread who actively agree that Islam is the biggest threat to this country. C’mon. That’s insane. It’s scapegoating at it’s best.
Don’t get me wrong, extremism is a problem. But is completely separate to this idea that ‘Islam’ is a problem. If you think all Muslims are extremists and the two can’t be separated then you have problems.
Blaming a whole religion, or a whole race on a problem caused by a minority is not okay. It is racism. Just because we’re sliding down a slippery slope where people are more comfortable with being racist, it doesn’t suddenly make it right.
7 Likes
It’s not insane, there is a logic to that rationale but it is lazy stereo typing & only looking through a narrow view.
It’s like assuming all Christianity is like the evangelical West Boro Baptist church or that all religions cause wars so it would be better if everyone was atheist/humanist.
It’s a gross generalisation based on flawed perception that needs challenging.
What is going on is those extremist elements are enforcing their interpretation onto the more moderate pushing religious “shunning” on those who disagree with their extreme.
The political aspect comes from how counties like Iran was weaponised this to enable terrorism & manipulation.
So how do you deal with this ignorance & avoid the prejudices become bigotry?
The easy route is cutting out & shunning. This just causes it to fester & become gangrenous & doesn’t address the issue. It just forces underground & just reinforces the attitude of the cult. The extremist rely on this being reaction.
The harder but better route is provide a safe space for people to raise those views and (this is the important bit) be challenged on the rationale for those views.
And you then keep challenging but never shun or ostracise - your not endorsing that persons views or enabling them but you then help to rehabilitate so their views moderate & even if not totally align with your to a stage at least is based on reason & logic & not hyperbole.
1 Like
I don’t believe Islam is the greatest threat to the UK (in my opinion that would be anti-democratic forces: in which I include China, Russia, the EU, the Civil Service, the judiciary, trade unions … the usual suspects I bang on about) but I also don’t accept the argument that Islamist extremism is the only problem presented by Islam.
As far as I’m aware, the grooming / rape gangs and hundreds of illegal immigrants arriving every day are not exclusively Islamists (they aren’t exclusively Muslim either, but many are): they are nevertheless a challenge.
So, the problem isn’t all Muslims, but it isn’t only Islamists either (and either way isn’t the greatest threat).
1 Like
I could tackle some parts of that, because the way you frame certain things is a symptom and perpetuation of the language (some would argue misinterpretation/misinformation/disinformation - either willful or otherwise) used to stoke the fires of right wing extremism. And to be clear, that’s not an accusation, but an observation on the language used. And here’s the kicker: that could be very similar to what has happened with this OCdt and their choice of language was more extreme and less nuanced than their actual opinion.
This isn’t a debate on immigration or criminality*
My fear in this thread is we go too far into the weeds of debating these underlying/underpinning topics that we become both too far removed from the original thread topic and also risk the conversation just devolving without any real direction.
*Until we know anything more about what was actually said, how it was challenged, and how or if the individual doubled down or reacted to challenge (if we ever do), we don’t know what we need to debate.
We can’t debate the legitimacy of views or fairness of suspension without that information and to take ourselves down rabbit holes we don’t know are relevant would be folly.
I would hope in this case we’re dealing with a “suspension without prejudice” situation where the CoC has decided the best action for all is to take some time out to work out if what was actually said and is held as belief is genuinely problematic, was there a misunderstanding (perhaps the individual is a little clumsy with their phrasing and needs to work on constructing clearer arguments that more accurately represent their intention), and is there a course of action available to provide intervention that puts or keeps the individual on the right path.
PREVENT and other early interventions have been mentioned above, and it doesn’t seem that anyone disagrees with the concept that stereotyping an entire religion is incorrect. Resolving this early is important for both the individual and the organisation.
I doubt as well that anyone here would suggest that having someone in a leadership position within a diverse organisation that genuinely held those views should be acceptable. Especially when that organisation may involve that individual in operations within and/or alongside nations where Islam is the majority religion.
5 Likes
I’m going to query EU and trade unions, which I know more about. Both are democratic. Not perfect, and every democratic institution is a compromise between representation and administrative feasibility, but clearly democratic.
TUs are formed, funded and controlled by their members. Local TU reps are voted in by members and the various exec committees, from those elected reps, are voted on by members. Major decisions are either voted on by members e.g. a ballot on accepting a pay deal or by their elected reps e.g. national policy. How could TUs be more democratic?
The EU is also democratic, with an elected European Parliament and representatives from the elected national governments (European Council) all involved in policy making. These 2 elected bodies have to agree before legislation is passed and they override any initial proposals by the Commission. How is that not democratic?
I’ll let more knowledgeable people answer about the judiciary and Civil Service, but I don’t see any evidence that they’re anti-democratic. Quite the opposite in fact!
2 Likes
2 Likes
I’m not going to respond properly, due to thread drift, but all those institutions’ democratic credentials have been challenged in the public record.
2 Likes
The judiciary is absolutely fine. If you wanted to ruin it, you’d copy the idiotic American system and elect judges, which is what the idiots who don’t like the judiciary want
1 Like
What do you propose? Elect the civil service each time we have a new government and have wack-jobs appointed as departmental heads by the latest person in the chair in Downing Street?
2 Likes
Just that the elected government is able to bring in their own administration who are enthusiastic to deliver on the manifesto, that’s all.
The thread will just be closed if you continue…
1 Like