Friday, 28 March 2008

NUT seek to ban 'military Recruitment'


Barking mad this not least as 'military recruitment' does not happen in schools. Another point is all these delegates speak authoritatively about a military in which none at all have ever served. I guess their beef is with the govt but still attacking the soldiers themselves is easier. From the Daily Mail in this case:





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=533428&in_page_id=1770 Row as teachers call for ban on army 'pro-war propaganda' recruitment leaflets in schools By LAURA CLARK and MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author » Last updated at 00:46am on 14th March 2008 Comments (32) Military recruitment in schools should be banned as it exposes pupils to pro-war propaganda, teachers say. Left-wingers in the National Union of Teachers are attempting to galvanise a campaign to stop recruitment visits. Scroll down for more... Glamourized: The MoD have been accused of targeting yongsters by a teachers' unionDespite acute shortages of military manpower, the teachers will present a motion to the union's annual conference this month urging members to "actively oppose" recruitment activities in schools. The move, described as "deeply unpatriotic", will fuel growing concern over hostility displayed by parts of society towards the Armed Forces. The motion, scheduled for debate at the NUT conference in Manchester, condemns "the exploitation of schools for recruitment by the Armed Forces". It says: "Military intervention in schools customarily presents a partisan view of war, largely by ignoring its fatal realities in favour of promises of travel, skill training and further or higher education course sponsorships otherwise often unavailable to young people, especially in areas of high unemployment. "Conference believes that teachers and schools should not be conduits for either the dissemination of MoD propaganda or the recruitment of military personnel. "Conference therefore agrees to actively oppose military recruitment activities in schools." The Ministry of Defence has scaled back active recruitment in schools. But the three services still have teams which respond to invitations to visit schools, giving countless presentations. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, formerly a colonel in charge of Army recruitment, said: "The union's attitude leaves me breathless. It is deeply unpatriotic, and runs directly contrary to the commitment and bravery our servicemen and women are showing in service of their country. "Recruitment and retention have never been as difficult as they are now, and visiting schools to make young people aware of opportunities in the military is a key part of recruitment strategy." The union's leadership has already made clear it intends to get the section of the motion referring to visits removed. It said it opposed the attempt to stop recruitment activities and has put forward an amendment that would see it removed. However, the leadership is backing a second aspect of the motion, attacking the use of teaching materials produced by the MoD, and intended to increase awareness of Armed Forces activity, as "propaganda". NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott wrote to Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, to complain about a lesson plan for English intended to help pupils learn the skill of "writing to argue". The plan focuses on "the ongoing occupation of Iraq by British Armed Forces". Mr Sinnott said: "I think it is propaganda. It does not present a balanced position." But the MoD said use of the resources was voluntary. "We have consulted widely with teachers and students during the development of these products and feedback from schools has been extremely encouraging." Critics of the motion said it was obvious that Armed Forces recruitment material would avoid drawing undue attention to the risk of loss of life attached to a forces role. What about the leftie NUT members with their propaganda? Something with their ten weeks paid holiday a year they have a lot of time for it seems.

4 comments:

John said...

In the Yorkshire Post, Patrick Mercer talked about kids that looked painfully young and how in the Army they have grown old before their time. These 19-year old youngsters are having to kill and to face the prospect of being killed, they die not to protect their country but to fulfil corporate greed (oil) and military strategy.

I do not think it is right that our kids should be used to support wars for corporate greed and military strategy rather than in true defence of the realm. Sadly there are the likes of former lieutenant colonel Patrick Mercer
to tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory that old lie, "it is fine and sweet to die for one’s country", a lie not accepted by that old soldier Wilfred Owen, so let Mercer cry lets have more "Boots and bayonets", his son is safe and sound.

For too long youngsters have died on the front line, their lives spent by their government like small coins and for what do those that lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved, and were loved now die if not for corporate greed and military strategy. WMD in Iraq was a lie, 9/11 was an inside job, and it’s not deeply unpatriotic to refuse to be part of the war machine conveyor belt helping to move children from school to the front line and possibly back home in a body bag.

In times when the likes of Adolf Hitler are knocking on our door and liberty is in peril upon our sacred shores then it is right that youngsters take up arms against a sea of troubles lest we be no more.

But never,ever in the name of corporate greed and military strategy

Paul said...

'9/11 was an inside job'. Sorry John I thought we might have a reasonable debate there mate but I'm afraid you're bonkers! Nice quote from Owen by the way but neither he nor Sassoon were actually against the war or the military. As to corporate greed fueling military strategy that is a separate point but it is worth bearing in mind that currently the taxpayer are paying out Afghan/Iraq and I do not see any large corporation heading to either destination. Thanks fro dropping by I shall take a peek at your blog later.

John said...

I’m afraid if truth be told it is you that is "bonkers" and perhaps a touch credulous believing that 9/11 was simply a terrorist attack. Perhaps you think that America's air defences suddenly vanish and don’t believe that there is an history of government sponsored terrorism. It seems you suppose that the towers collapsed neatly and evenly because of the fires. The fires in WTC buildings were not hot enough to melt steel. That's because maximum temperatures reached by burning jet fuel is far below that of the melting point of steel.

There is video and seismographic evidence that the towers collapse was caused by explosive cutting charges of the of key structural members. It is apparent you have not done your homework regarding 9/11 or large corporations. Indeed the only thing you seem capable of doing is belittling from a position of ignorance those that have studied the subject.

I wish I could say that all you have said is risible but such childish nonsensical rhetoric from beginning to end is no laughing matter. Now in accordance with your apparent nature feel free to fulminate as much as you please.

Paul said...

John, you have studied the collapse of the towers therefore as an engineer? Just wondering. Steel does not have to melt in order for it to lose its strength. We know this from the way metal smiths work heat it till its red hot and it becomes weak and bendy. But what strikes me as strange is why you think it was not a terrorist attack? Because what then of the others? Take for instance the Al Qaeda attack against the twin towers using a car bomb in 1993. For which Ramzi Yousef was convicted. He never claimed he was put up to it at his trial. Neither for that matter did Richard Reid who upon sentencing declared himself a 'disciple of Bin Laden'. Both of these individuals were Jihadi terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29

It seems strange to me therefore that with clear evidence of terrorist attacks that the US government would feel the need to carry out its own attack against its own people and kill thousands. I mean was Bill Clinton behind the 1998 attacks against the US Embassies in Tanzania and Nairobi? Where according to you does the involvement of the US government start and end in all this. Also why do none of the terrorists convicted in the US, Madrid, UK, Indonesia etc etc ever actually say in their defence 'the US put me up to it'? Their defence would have a field day!

Oh and your point about the US air defences? Those air defences were and still are intended to defend against conventional attack by missile and plane, not hijacked air liners.