http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7108650.stm
QUOTE "Defence Secretary Des Browne has hit back at criticism by former defence chiefs, saying morale among serving soldiers is "as high as it could be".
Admiral Lord Boyce said Gordon Brown treated UK forces with "contempt" - and his decision to make Mr Browne Scottish Secretary as well was an "insult".
Mr Browne said he had not heard those criticisms from serving soldiers and he was happy to be judged on his record. " UNQUOTE
2007-11-22 23:35:41 · 15 answers · asked by Hello 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Re paul w
I admire your self control Sir and thank you
2007-11-23 01:32:45 · update #1
Re mjrm
Precisely !
2007-11-24 05:16:09 · update #2
I listened to this interview this morning on the Today show and just found him to be in complete denial of the facts and criticisms that were presented in the House of Lords yesterday by no less than five former defence chiefs. His attitude was completely contemptible and no less than we have come to expect from New Labour.
I think it speaks volumes that instead of having a dedicated Secretary for Defence, we have one who also moonlights as the Scottish Secretary. How can Labour and Gordon Brown say they are taking the military seriously when they are willing to just dismiss the claims made against them by people with infinitely more knowledge of what they are talking about?
2007-11-22 23:40:44 · answer #1 · answered by slıɐuǝoʇ 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Sorry but this is a little techy...
In 1997 I worked on ceramic armour for the UK, we knew then that Boron Carbide was the way to go for modern body armour. Today UK forces are still using Alumina, and worse, it is a top loaded plate (in the vest). This is a problem because if an explosion goes off below you the plate (which weighs several kilos) can be blown up into your face.
Slatted (like dragon skin) Boron Carbide systems wouldn't do this, but there was no money for it.
The politicians don't understand the technical trade offs, and technicians try and do the best they can with the budget that is available. The result is always that UK troops get screwed.
Falklands - no carriers, and no effective anti-missile systems.
Gulf 1 - 30% losses of RAF personnel during low level raids whilst the USAF flew over at 40,000ft with laser guided weapons.
And lets not even get started on the SA80 (even if it is "fixed" now) or Bowman radios.
2007-11-24 09:11:19 · answer #2 · answered by Andrew W 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No I saw the two people from the army giving their views and these were just not anyone. They were the highest ranking officers in the army and know what they are talking about. The morale is not going to be rock bottom but with troops being maimed and killed on a regular basis how can Des Brown say oh things are fine. Let them spend a few weeks out there instead of a photo shoot and home for a hot bath and ****.
2007-11-23 00:36:41 · answer #3 · answered by Edgein 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Politicians have never had any time for the forces. Kipling wrote a poem about it in the early 19th century, When I was serving in the 1970s' pay was so bad that junior airmen were on income support so that they could pay their married quarters rent, and most of my time was spent moving equipement betwen aircraft as there wasn't enough for each aircraft to have its' own set. I would be very surprised if anything has changed.
2007-11-29 23:31:51 · answer #4 · answered by ADC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a pity Des Browne cant take a walk on patrol in either Iraq or Afghanistan carrying the issue equipment to get some idea of the conditions and quality of equipment used by the troops.
But that would be asking for to much!!
2007-11-23 04:22:44 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
To all ex servicemen. Mr Browns comments are an affront to intelligence,any soldier who is confronted by the prime minister and certainly in the presence of a senior soldier would not be able to speak freely to the PM.Mr Brown though. was quite right he had not heard those criticisms from serving soldiers they would not be allowed to express them for the above reasons.
2007-11-24 06:23:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I've said enough on the state of HM Forces under this Government on past questions
I will just give you the comments of my son - currently deployed in Afghanistan and in a far better position to make comment than Des Browne.
"Sh!t morale, sh!t equipment and sh!t accommodation with a 32% resignation rate at present"
That I think sums up the state of our forces regardless of what Labour would have us all believe!!
I think 1 word can describe Des Browne and his record - TW@T!!
2007-11-23 00:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by one shot 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It is not a normal course of events for "retired" Chiefs of General Staff to openly criticise the Government. There has to be something seriously amiss in the Armed Forces, for them to campaign against the Minister of Defence.
After all, they are appointed to their military eminence, because they were POLITICALLY acceptable!
Chiefs of General Staff actually do not retire. They are kept on the Staff Lists in case of any future National need. Therefore, they keep in close touch with the PULSE of their Service.
If they say there is a problem, you can virtually guarantee it is bloody serious!
2007-11-22 23:48:34 · answer #8 · answered by Bob P 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Labour have never cared for the forces, never have, never will.
MP's should serve in the forces before they even have the right to comment or make decisions on defence matters.
2007-11-24 06:27:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have a senior Defence Chief telling me that morale is low and forces are treated badly and a politician saying the opposite.........?
Umm let me think................scratches head.........
Who do I believe----Admiral Lord Boyce of course!
2007-11-22 23:48:18 · answer #10 · answered by Dee L 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋