Jump to content

My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 24.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hedganian

    2252

  • shmook

    2033

  • FireKnife

    1686

  • scorch

    1618

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, it's nearly Christmas! A time to laugh and joke, to sing and... who am I trying to kid? I hate this time of year, it always makes me irritable and angry. And that tends to spill into other areas

Wow, you've chosen to play today's edition of 'Wheel of Fortune!'   Let's see what you've won!   CONGRATULATIONS! For using homophobic language (because I'm sure as *suitcase* you're not calling m

ahhh.... that reminds me...   The losers who say that I'm wasting my money on airsoft... you spend $4000 on an ATV... and you accuse me of wasting money??

Posted Images

Re-Test Thursday. Gotta give them 24 hours to recover, technically a course fail but I can't do that and they return to units as 'fat waster' then remedial action which they never pass, get downgraded and some how make it to WO1 in 15 years.

Frustrating.

 

You see it in my job too. Fitness test is bleep test to 5.4 then stop. That's it. You can run that with no training, and hungover. I know this firsthand because every time I've done it, I've not trained and been hungover on the day... The level of fitness required is a joke

 

Re qual once a year and people still fail. People nearly half my age who know they can't run and have a full year to train if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget a bit of casual racist banter and discussion on the best way to cover up child abuse.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4343753.ece

 

"A corrupt police officer and two councillors have been accused of having sex with victims of one of Britain’s worst child abuse scandals, The Times can reveal.

The claims relate to politicians and a constable in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, where an estimated 1,400 girls were subjected to serious sexual offences over 16 years.
The explosive allegations are revealed by The Times on the day that long-awaited findings from an independent inspection of the local authority are due to be published. The report is expected to make damning criticism of the council, which risks being stripped of its powers.
Complaints against the two Rotherham councillors are understood to have been sent to the National Crime Agency, which is investigating child-sex crimes in the town. One of the councillors is still serving.
Allegations against the police officer, who is also said to have regularly passed information to abusers targeting vulnerable children for sex, have separately been referred to the police watchdog by the South Yorkshire force.
A second officer is accused of neglect in his duty because he allegedly failed to take appropriate action after receiving intelligence about his colleague’s conduct. The claims are being assessed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
In 2012, when The Times published confidential documents revealing that police officers and council officials had known for at least a decade that girls in Rotherham were being groomed, pimped and trafficked by men with virtual impunity, the local authority’s response was to demand a criminal inquiry into the leaking of the documents.
The council threatened High Court action to block another story and also hired a firm of solicitors to expose the “security breach”.
The town gained international notoriety last year when an inquiry by Alexis Jay found that hundreds of girls, some as young as 11, suffered “appalling levels of crime and abuse” from 1997 to 2013. Children were said to have been abducted, trafficked to other towns, beaten, threatened and in some cases forced to witness rapes. The men involved were “almost all” of Pakistani origin.
Senior police officers and council officials were said to have known of the abuse yet chose to “disbelieve, suppress or ignore” evidence of multiple crimes.
In the public outcry that came after the Jay report, Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, ordered an independent inspection of Rotherham council that was led by Louise Casey, the director-general of the government’s troubled families programme. Ms Casey’s report is likely to be presented to MPs this morning. Sources in the town expect that it is likely to be scathing in its verdict on the council’s overall performance and provision of safeguarding services to children and young people.
If the authority is found to be failing to discharge its duties to an acceptable level, Mr Pickles has the power to order some form of government intervention. Last year he sent in three commissioners to oversee the London borough of Tower Hamlets. A similar measure was taken in 2010 after serious failings were identified in Doncaster, Rotherham’s neighbouring authority.
The criticisms in the Jay report, published last August, led to the resignations of the council leader, Roger Stone, its chief executive, Martin Kimber, the director of children’s services, Joyce Thacker, and the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner, Shaun Wright.
It also triggered an inquiry by the Commons home affairs committee, which heard of claims from a charity worker that a police officer was on the payroll of groups of men who groomed and sexually abused children in Rotherham. It was claimed that the rogue officer undermined efforts to protect girls by sharing confidential information with sex criminals of Pakistani origin."
 
Then...
 
 
"Police have appealed for witnesses to the collision to come forward." - would have thought they would be a bit more keen to find out who killled a copper in a hit and run! 
 
edit: to be fair it seems that with the "VIP" paedophile rings they did actually make a good go of it but special branch shut them all down. But as David Cameron says, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me  <_< 
 
edit 2: to be on topic - I had two teeth taken out yesterday. bleeding didn't stop so had to go back and get MORE stitches and as such more anesthetic. Smacked my head on a cupboard after bending over to pick up my coat - started bleeding from head! I feel rough as fook
Edited by Skarclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

You see it in my job too. Fitness test is bleep test to 5.4 then stop.

Thanks Feminism!

 

Women pass marks must be lower as it's not fair. Lower the pass mark. Male complaints, lower their pass marks to match. Women pass marks must be lower as it's not fair.

 

Oh, you can walk and pass a 5.4 fitness test now? Roger so far.

 

I'm concerned the Army is pushing out a Watt Bike test so those that are using the 'I can't run' excuse are given a fitness test. I really hope it's hard to pass, 'cos then I can discharge the useless fat soldiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm concerned the Army is pushing out a Watt Bike test so those that are using the 'I can't run' excuse are given a fitness test. I really hope it's hard to pass, 'cos then I can discharge the useless fat soldiers.

 

Do you legit have soldiers that can't run?

 

Do they join up expecting to have a bicycle to ride into battle on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't fat when I was in. I never passed the PFT run, because I'm ###### at running. I'm okay at cycling, so an alternative to the run done on an exercise bike - or even a proper bike out on the streets - would have been a godsend for me.

I passed the bleep-test more often than not, but PTIs seem to much prefer organising the 1.5 mile run out on the road to organising a bleep test in the gym. Especially in bad weather. Because I firmly believe they're all sadists.

And no, I don't expect a bike to ride into battle on - carrying soldiers into battle is why the army have land rovers, 4-tonne trucks and Armoured Personnel Carriers, amongst other vehicles. Plus I was in the Signals, so my job was to sit in the back of the land rover basically all the time I wasn't actually fighting to put up 12-metres masts in howling hailstorms... :)

In other news, the idea of having a lower standard for women is BS. "Fairness" by definition, is applying the same standard to everyone. If the army has a justification for requiring the ability to run 1.5 miles in a certain time, then that requirement applies to everyone equally. If you're male, female, IS, blind, deaf, in a wheelchair, whatever. If you're able to complete the test, then you pass and you're in. If not, then you didn't and you're not.

Nothing worse than getting a *badger*ing for not coming in under the required time when other people are even slower and they're being congratulated just because they happen to be women. How is that "equality"?

Edited for speeling. ;)

Second edit - level 5.4 on a bleep test is a pass? You could do that on your hands and knees. The last PTI I remember before I left didn't even bother to play the first 4 levels because they were too slow.

Edited by Hedganian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't fat when I was in. I never passed the PFT run, because I'm ###### at running. I'm okay at cycling, so an alternative to the run done on an exercise bike - or even a proper bike out on the streets - would have been a godsend for me.

 

 

This is why we call you people REMFs, because you have lower standards than ours and you still can't pass.  While we get biffs in the infantry, it's generally easier to boot them out, or give them *suitcasey* B stream jobs if they have too much rank to get rid of.  

The idea of lowering standards to suit women sickens me.  They should keep up or *fruitcage* off.

I didn't fail anything, ever, in my 11 years service, and I wouldn't want our pedigree diluted by weakness.  It's bad enough as it is these days, since they brought in the AGAI system.

In my day, if you *fruitcage*ed up you got beaten and/or rippers, none of this paperwork *badger*s.  It allows non ferocious types to be infantrymen without conducting themselves as such.

 

Darkchild

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as "positive discrimination" - if you're discriminating FOR one group, then by definition, you're discriminating *against* every other group.
 

This is why we call you people REMFs, because you have lower standards than ours and you still can't pass.  

 

 

 

 

No, it's because you're a bunch of elitist *albartrotheth* who think that anyone who's not infantry is a waste of space, forgetting that without the rest of the army to provide and maintain the equipment, food, water, weapons, ammo, comms, pay, etc, etc, etc. the infantry soldier isn't going to be a lot of use.

 

;)

Edited by Hedganian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrating.

 

You see it in my job too. Fitness test is bleep test to 5.4 then stop. That's it. You can run that with no training, and hungover. I know this firsthand because every time I've done it, I've not trained and been hungover on the day... The level of fitness required is a joke

 

Re qual once a year and people still fail. People nearly half my age who know they can't run and have a full year to train if needed.

 

 

Passed that test while suffering with explosive diarrhoea and kidney stones.

 

 

Just to be clear, fair is absolutely not  treating everyone the same, fair is treating everyone fairly.

 

By that definition fair treatment would be forcing everyone in the world to celebrate xmas, even if they don't want to.

 

However, military standards are not supposed to be fair.

Some people can do them, some can't.  Tough *suitcase*.

 

If you set the standards then keep them for everyone, always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fairness" by definition, is applying the same standard to everyone.

 

Just to be clear, fair is absolutely not  treating everyone the same, fair is treating everyone fairly.

 

This is an important distinction that gets misused a lot when discussing fairness and equality.

Edited by Stuey
Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy I know has created an event on facebook to organise an anti war, anti trident protest... outside the local sea cadet corps.

 

 

Well not on my watch, hippy *fruitcage*. The sea cadet CO was very interested to hear about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy I know has created an event on facebook to organise an anti war, anti trident protest... outside the local sea cadet corps.

 

 

Well not on my watch, hippy *fruitcage*. The sea cadet CO was very interested to hear about that.

 

Well, I'm certainly opposed to sending Trident-armed Sea Cadets into war... Where do I sign?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's surrounded himself with a little bubble of sycophantic soap dodgers that would just encourage him. It's not appropriate, and I'm not gonna sit back and let them be blindsided by it. That just isn't fair. That's what I meant by it. Figure of speech, like.

 

 

And permission? Really? He's not asking permission. He regularly gets shitfaced and shouts at them from across the river.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it's because you're a bunch of elitist *albartrotheth* who think that anyone who's not infantry is a waste of space, forgetting that without the rest of the army to provide and maintain the equipment, food, water, weapons, ammo, comms, pay, etc, etc, etc. the infantry soldier isn't going to be a lot of use.

 

;)

 

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT   ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.