Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[thetrees]

So let me get this right, they now don't have to go through the terminal they get bussed off the tarmac and away?

If that's right then what the hell is the complaint, don't half wish I could get treated that badly at an airport instead of the usual rigmarole

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why.

They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people.

Do you think that is correct policy?

IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place.

Do you have more information on this, or maybe a source?

I can find a story about returning soldiers having to change into civilian clothes a couple of years ago, because of a long-standing requirement not to wear uniform in places where they might be a target for the IRA (presumably a pretty old instruction), but nothing very recent. I gather this comes from the Army, rather than the company running the airport.

Who was "offended", what was the nature of the offence, who decided what?

I can dig around for later. If I find it I'll post in a separate thread.

As I stated in an earlier message, no one is likely to hold their hands up to admit the decision.

As some say, it's certainly more efficient, and not a big deal. But for me the fact that the hand was forced is a big deal.

[ml1dch]

Another thing on Clegg, didn't he clearly state pre-election that he would support the party with most number of seats and votes? The records show that wasn't Labour.

Out of interest are none of the Lib Dems on here a little shocked by this?

Wrong! What he said was that he would speak to the party with most seats/votes before anyone else. He made no promise to then support them. Clegg, as an honourable man, has just kept to his word.

I might be wrong, but I don't think he even said that.

He said that the party with the most seats/share of the vote would have the biggest mandate to try to form the next government. And I don't think anyone has denied that party the right to try to do that.

[Condimentalist]

AV will change next to nothing about the political system, which is, I suppose, why the Tories are going the 'extra mile' to offer it. Makes them seem reasonable but AV would be like getting a huge empty parcel at christmas.

Well, more like a brick when one was wanting a house.

Better analogy

[Awol]

Looks like Unite are expecting the Tories and rolling out the welcome mat here

Long summer ahead.

[bickster]

So let me get this right, they now don't have to go through the terminal they get bussed off the tarmac and away?

If that's right then what the hell is the complaint, don't half wish I could get treated that badly at an airport instead of the usual rigmarole

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why.

They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people.

Do you think that is correct policy?

IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place.

I think you're onto something with that last paragraph ;-) , though if its being done for the offence reason then its wrong but more likely it been done to keep the peace and not really make an issue of it. Where is it that this is being done from a governmental level

[peterms]

So let me get this right, they now don't have to go through the terminal they get bussed off the tarmac and away?

If that's right then what the hell is the complaint, don't half wish I could get treated that badly at an airport instead of the usual rigmarole

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why.

They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people.

Do you think that is correct policy?

IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place.

Do you have more information on this, or maybe a source?

I can find a story about returning soldiers having to change into civilian clothes a couple of years ago, because of a long-standing requirement not to wear uniform in places where they might be a target for the IRA (presumably a pretty old instruction), but nothing very recent. I gather this comes from the Army, rather than the company running the airport.

Who was "offended", what was the nature of the offence, who decided what?

I can dig around for later. If I find it I'll post in a separate thread.

As I stated in an earlier message, no one is likely to hold their hands up to admit the decision.

As some say, it's certainly more efficient, and not a big deal. But for me the fact that the hand was forced is a big deal.

Conservative Home had this account of soldiers not being allowed into the terminal building in uniform:

When my son returned at the end of 07 from Afghanistan, the plane was diverted to Birmingham Airport. The returning soldiers were told to remove their uniforms so as not to offend the local Muslim community. The impact on soldiers who had served their country and who were looking forward to seeing their families for Christmas for the first time in months was shattering.

The Mail had this:

One soldier involved in the Birmingham fiasco said: "The temperature was Baltic on the runway but most of just wanted to get home so we cracked on with getting changed in the open.

"We weren't told who gave the order. It might have been the designated senior officer on board, the chartered airline or the airport security people. It's an insult to the entire Army to force guys who've been fighting in Afghanistan to obey some jobsworth rule when all they want to do is get home soonest to their families. So much for a nation proud of its servicemen."

An MoD spokesman said: "We can confirm the incident occurred but because everyone is on leave, we have not been able to discover who gave the order.

"It's possibly a response to an out-of-date standing instruction during the confrontation with the IRA that service personnel should not make themselves terrorist targets by wearing uniform in public places."

An airport spokesman added: "There are no restrictions relating to clothing or appearance for those using the airport for public flights. However, the airport company has been advised that certain airlines may refuse to accept personnel in military uniform."

It was a story about Army regulations being misrepresented as Muslims getting offended.

Obviously that's not what you mean, because you were describing an incident you personally witnessed last Friday, if I understand you right.

[drat01]

Looks like Unite are expecting the Tories and rolling out the welcome mat here

Long summer ahead.

The only thing that has to do with the Tory party is the fact that Walsh shows all the same traits as a Tory in his dealings with staff and his complete and utter disregard for anything else than London.

Jon this is a long running dispute between the Union and Walsh, nothing to do with the election. Walsh should have been removed from his position ages ago, he has ruined BA.

[bickster]

Looks like Unite are expecting the Tories and rolling out the welcome mat here

Long summer ahead.

I'm sorry but that post is idiotic given that Labour (whom I in no way support) came out against the strikes the first time around. Unite have a long running dispute with BA and whichever government is in power isn't going to alter that and as the last government condemned it I fail to see the reason for you posting such nonsense. Unite started the action under Labour so the point you're making is entirely fallacious I believe

[Awol]

The only thing that has to do with the Tory party is the fact that Walsh shows all the same traits as a Tory in his dealings with staff....

This is getting tedious now. I treated the people who worked under me exceptionally well, as does Tony and apparently the Trees too. Please, stop this pointless stereotyping when it's so clearly bollox unless you are deliberately trying to get someone into trouble for biting back at you.

Jon this is a long running dispute between the Union and Walsh, nothing to do with the election. Walsh should have been removed from his position ages ago, he has ruined BA.

I'm aware this is on going but imo the Unite mob are going to go after the Tories (if they form a government) with everything they've got. Having singlehandedly kept Labur afloat financially for a number of years they'll be out for revenge.

EDIT: Bicks, ref your post above hopefully that has cleared up what I meant a little.

[bickster]

Unite having a dispute with BA somehow equates to them having a go at the Tories? How does that work, especially when we nor Unite seem to know if we're even getting the Tories. If we get Lab/Lib I'll suspect that Unite will carry on all the same

[peterms]

I'm aware this is on going but imo the Unite mob are going to go after the Tories (if they form a government) with everything they've got. Having singlehandedly kept Labur afloat finacially for a number of years they'll be out for revenge.

The main agenda for the union tends to be preserving and increasing membership, and preserving and improving pay and conditions; obviously both have a reinforcing effect on each other. To that end, I've not usually observed them to be shy about taking on Labour councils or governments, when necessary.

Of course, for pretty obvious reasons, anyone interested in improving the conditions of the poorer rather than the richer segments of society will be more likely to find themselves in conflict with the tories. But that doesn't make it a party-political, ideologically based issue, which I think you imply.

[Awol]

Unite having a dispute with BA somehow equates to them having a go at the Tories? How does that work, especially when we nor Unite seem to know if we're even getting the Tories. If we get Lab/Lib I'll suspect that Unite will carry on all the same

'Kin ell. Unite are THE only thing that has kept Labour solvent. The tories are the party proposing cuts this year and Unite ARE gearing up to fight them, that much has been trailed in the press for a few months. One of the main men behind Unite is Charlie Whelan, formerly of Brown's inner circle.

If you think they are not going to try and make trouble should a tory government be formed then frankly you're being very naive Bicks.

The comment about BA was intended more tongue in cheek than anything but clearly failed on that score, however I was trying to make a broader point "Long summer ahead".

[thetrees]

So let me get this right, they now don't have to go through the terminal they get bussed off the tarmac and away?

If that's right then what the hell is the complaint, don't half wish I could get treated that badly at an airport instead of the usual rigmarole

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why.

They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people.

Do you think that is correct policy?

IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place.

Do you have more information on this, or maybe a source?

I can find a story about returning soldiers having to change into civilian clothes a couple of years ago, because of a long-standing requirement not to wear uniform in places where they might be a target for the IRA (presumably a pretty old instruction), but nothing very recent. I gather this comes from the Army, rather than the company running the airport.

Who was "offended", what was the nature of the offence, who decided what?

I can dig around for later. If I find it I'll post in a separate thread.

As I stated in an earlier message, no one is likely to hold their hands up to admit the decision.

As some say, it's certainly more efficient, and not a big deal. But for me the fact that the hand was forced is a big deal.

Conservative Home had this account of soldiers not being allowed into the terminal building in uniform:

When my son returned at the end of 07 from Afghanistan, the plane was diverted to Birmingham Airport. The returning soldiers were told to remove their uniforms so as not to offend the local Muslim community. The impact on soldiers who had served their country and who were looking forward to seeing their families for Christmas for the first time in months was shattering.

The Mail had this:

One soldier involved in the Birmingham fiasco said: "The temperature was Baltic on the runway but most of just wanted to get home so we cracked on with getting changed in the open.

"We weren't told who gave the order. It might have been the designated senior officer on board, the chartered airline or the airport security people. It's an insult to the entire Army to force guys who've been fighting in Afghanistan to obey some jobsworth rule when all they want to do is get home soonest to their families. So much for a nation proud of its servicemen."

An MoD spokesman said: "We can confirm the incident occurred but because everyone is on leave, we have not been able to discover who gave the order.

"It's possibly a response to an out-of-date standing instruction during the confrontation with the IRA that service personnel should not make themselves terrorist targets by wearing uniform in public places."

An airport spokesman added: "There are no restrictions relating to clothing or appearance for those using the airport for public flights. However, the airport company has been advised that certain airlines may refuse to accept personnel in military uniform."

It was a story about Army regulations being misrepresented as Muslims getting offended.

Obviously that's not what you mean, because you were describing an incident you personally witnessed last Friday, if I understand you right.

You have dug out the correct time as to when the directive began. This was because the presence on an earlier flight had caused offence.

And yes, it was last Friday that I witnessed the off loading of troops onto the apron, because they are not allowed to go through the terminal.

[bickster]

Unite having a dispute with BA somehow equates to them having a go at the Tories? How does that work, especially when we nor Unite seem to know if we're even getting the Tories. If we get Lab/Lib I'll suspect that Unite will carry on all the same

'Kin ell. Unite are THE only thing that has kept Labour solvent. The tories are the party proposing cuts this year and Unite ARE gearing up to fight them, that much has been trailed in the press for a few months. One of the main men behind Unite is Charlie Whelan, formerly of Brown's inner circle.

If you think they are not going to try and make trouble should a tory government be formed then frankly you're being very naive Bicks.

The comment about BA was intended more tongue in cheek than anything but clearly failed on that score, however I was trying to make a broader point "Long summer ahead".

No I think the only people that are naive are the ones that think a government is going to make huge cuts (which we all know is inevitable no matter who gets in) but also expect the unions, representing their members interests aren't going to do anything. The point being it'll happen under whatever colour of party happens to be in government, it is inevitable. Same would happen if Labour were in power it would just happen more slowy, the unions would still kick up a fuss, thats their job.

Cuts = Unions making an issue of things, this is the natural order of things

[peterms]

You have dug out the correct time as to when the directive began. This was because the presence on an earlier flight had caused offence.

And yes, it was last Friday that I witnessed the off loading of troops onto the apron, because they are not allowed to go through the terminal.

Well, the story demonstrates that the directive dates from many years ago, and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive, to be outdated.

The personal blog on the conservativehome site blames this on Muslims, without a shred of evidence.

Your comment about the real reason being "offence", rather than obeying Army directives, risks falling into the same trap.

Do you have anything showing that the reason for the way soldiers are shepherded through BHX is caused by the unreasonable feelings of Muslims, rather than by Army policy?

[Ads]

It’s very interesting to hear some of the cabinet talking about a rainbow coalition and then contrast that with the view amongst Labour back benchers that the idea is nonsense.

[peterms]

It’s very interesting to hear some of the cabinet talking about a rainbow coalition and then contrast that with the view amongst Labour back benchers that the idea is nonsense.

I suspect all the parties have people who are thinking of ways to form a government, and people who think that is the last thing that would be in their longer-term interest.

[Awol]

The main agenda for the union tends to be preserving and increasing membership, and preserving and improving pay and conditions

Well when they put BA out of business and ALL of their BA cabin crew members on the dole at least they can slap themselves on the back for beating the fat cats.

[tonyh29]

and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ?

[peterms]

The main agenda for the union tends to be preserving and increasing membership, and preserving and improving pay and conditions

Well when they put BA out of business and ALL of their BA cabin crew members on the dole at least they can slap themselves on the back for beating the fat cats.

I don't think you've done the slightest bit of research about the correlation between company failure and union membership, have you?