b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Famous people I hate » Post 630940 | Search
This is a question Famous people I hate

Michael McIntyre, says our glorious leader. Everyone loves Michael McIntyre. Even the Daily Mail loves Michael McIntyre. Therefore, he must be a git. Who gets on your nerves?

Hint: A list of names, possibly including the words 'Katie Price' and 'Nuff said' does not an interesting answer make

(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 12:21)
Pages: Latest, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, ... 1

« Go Back

Not a person, but an organisation.
Help for Heroes.

My brother and sister-in-law are in the forces, and they have HfH car stickers, dishcloths and Christ-knows-what-else. They do fundraising for them.

This makes me a little peeved.

There is nothing heroic about being in the forces. It's a job, and a job for which you get paid. You don't have to join, and if you're surprised that, on occasion, you might be in a dangerous or life-threatening situation having joined the forces, then you're clearly not clever enough. You should perhaps consider a carreer as a Police Community Support Officer.

So the heroism can't be merely a measure of being in the forces. By that token, you, I, and everyone else who has signed a contract of employment for a job the demands of which were perfectly clear and from which we've managed not to get sacked is a hero.

Maybe the heroism has to do with being injured. But, again, if I fall down the stairs, or even get a work-related injury (granted, it's hard to see how someone like me who sits all day in a dingy office could suffer such a thing, but you get the picture), then that'd make me a hero. And I don't think I am a hero; nothing personal, but I doubt you are, either.

"Hero" used to indicate someone who had done something truly outstanding. Getting injured while doing your job doesn't strike me as outstanding. And by calling every such person a hero, HfH thereby devalues genuine heroism. Meanwhile, for those who do display genuine heroism, there are medals, promotions and honours. They don't need HfH.

Besides: if a member of the forces gets injured, they're entitled to claim all the benefits that someone born disabled or injured in everyday life can claim. They aren't any worse off than the civvies. If the beef is that disability benefits generally aren't high enough, then that's fine - I'll sign up to that. But it rather takes the military heroism away, doesn't it?

Something similar goes for the public grief junkie tabloid fodder halfwits who line the streets of Wootton Bassett every time someone so much as says the word "coffin". Idiots. Show some self-respect.

OK: I'll get into my fox-hole now. You can start the flaming.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:12, 35 replies)
well said..

(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:15, closed)
Don't act all surprised when your offspring gets shot.

That's like acting surprised that a plumber gets wet.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:17, closed)
Totally agree.

Also - I'm now going to call benefits 'beenfits'.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:27, closed)
*claims medal*
*demands parade and profile in the Sunday Mirror*
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:34, closed)

(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:28, closed)
No abuse from blockheads yet.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:34, closed)
I think that help for heroes is a worthy organisation
There are problems though.

They represent a backlash caused by the idea that the Iraq invasion and Afganistan war were both polically unjustiifed. HfH helps to separate the responsibility for the polical war from the young people fighting it. These actions look to us now as wars of aggression rather than wars of defence. Nobody needed to tell servicemen they were heroes in the world wars, it was very obvious. But now, they feel like polical pawns to be sacrificed in the name of some eventual victory. A bit of heroicness is needed to keep them fighting.

Not sure I have a point here. I would rather those serving me and my country were back here causing drunken fights in Devizes and Colchester rather than being shot at by a bunch of ungrateful rag heads. HfH lets me be ashamed of my political masters, yet still respect those caught up in a pile of shit we should not be in.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:35, closed)
Ungrateful rag-heads, eh?
Sadly, your racism is incredibly unoriginally expressed, so I can only give you six marks out of a possible 10.

EDIT: Nor am I sure that your point about heroism in the World Wars stands. Some people might have done some heroic things, and defeating Nazism might well have been an unimpeachable motive. But most of the conscripts were just boringly normal people who'd much preferred to have been at home.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:45, closed)
It was delibrately chosen
To show frustration with this extremely unclearcut situation. I'm more than content to let countries get on with there own business. I like less the export of drugs and terrorism to my country though. It is unreasonable too, for us to wish to convert any people to some cardigan wearing, pipe smoking utopia as defined by us, but I also think that a bit of human rights in other countries wouldn't go amiss.

Sadly, I do not require you to score my work, but feel free to do so if you wish.

EDIT: I repost your Edit with this. You are quite right about the world war stuff, but only to a point. The winners of medals very rarely declare themselves worthy of an award, and certainly do not declare themeselves to be heroes, or even brave. These are epithets for us to bestow on them, with honour.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 15:01, closed)
I agree with you completely but then again there are soldiers who go above and beyond the call of duty.
These are the ones who should be held up as heroes.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:37, closed)

I don't understand the surprise at injury or death either- they're SOLDIERS! They are given weapons. And are told to fight. What outcome where you expecting???
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:38, closed)
Yes, it's exactly how it's done.
I take it you have military experience?
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:43, closed)

No I know that was very black and white, and I do feel for the ones close to soldiers who have died or been injured.
It's just I don't understand the surprise or outcry when they've gone to a war zone. Death and injuries tend to go hand in hand with that.
But if soldiers genuinely believe that what they are doing in the name of our country is just, then at least they're not dying in vain.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:09, closed)
Most people joining up have a good idea what could happen, but when it all goes a bit wrong you get that sinking feeling and you KNOW that it's gone horribly wrong.
Help for Heroes has been set up because servicemen/women were finding that all the promises from the army saying that they will always be your family and will help you out are not quite true. Yes, they are better now but that's mostly down to public pressure and organisations like HfH who held up a mirror to the whole sorry mess.

I fucking double dare you to pop down to Selly Oak Hospital and express your views, "Well, it's only a job, what did you expect?"

For one thing you'll find most of them are not prepared to sit there and have everything given to them but only to have the opportunity to rebuild their lives again, because, you know, it can be a bit of a bugger missing both legs and an arm, not forgetting the absolutely horrible side conditions that can develop from something like this.

Actually, seriously, I really dare you to go down there and introduce yourself and meet some of the guys and girls, have a chat, exchange ideas and maybe both parties will learn something new. Yes, I know that you have relatives and are forces but it's not the same.
nuff said.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:40, closed)
Very well put.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:44, closed)
You've missed the point.
In fact, it looks like you barely read the post.

I have nothing against these people getting the best treatment available. But that's because I think that all injured people should get splendid treatment.

I don't think there's anything noble about them, though. I don't think they're heroes. I don't think we should get misty-eyed about people who're doing a job for which they volunteered. Because that's all it is: a job.

There's nothing special about members of the forces, or what they do.

As for the forces' promise to be a surrogate family: well, I don't expect that from my employer - hell, I even resent my family for being too familiar - and, by the same token, I don't see that it's reasonable for anyone else genuinely to expect it. Again: IT'S JUST A JOB.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:50, closed)
Well it's not exactly JUST A JOB.
There is a little more to it than that. But I too hate the fact that some people see every spotty oik as a hero as soon as they join the army.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:55, closed)
Like I said
Get yourself down to Selly Oak, then, I'm sure, you'll get the point.
I really think it would be a worthwhile trip.
Anyway, you made a number of points and I chose to give emphasis to one in particular. At my age, I'm allowed to.
I find the press coverage for HfH a little overwhelming tbh, I think most people are the same. Let them take advantage of it to raise the money, I say, in ten years it'll probably be history. People will have forgotten all about except the poor bastards with horrendous injuries.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 15:01, closed)
Wait so if I disagree with someone, I have to go somewhere where the opposite opinion
is strongly held and tell them to their face, else my opinion is invalid?

Seems a little rude to me. I assume you aren't a big fan of racism, yet I'm also guessing you haven't been to a Ku Klux Klan meeting and expressed that viewpoint? (An extreme example I know, but it gets my point across)
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:38, closed)
I'm seeing where you come from now
A world that does not take into account the mental state of an individual or group.

Yes, the injured get the best treatment, fixed up real good too. How do they feel inside though? Who gives a damn, they knew what they were doing when they joined up. Excellent pschologial treatment there.

Your kid's just been blown up? Meh, he knew what he let himself in for. Now MTFU. That doesn't sound too good for me.

A new word for you sunbeam. Empathy.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 15:08, closed)
No-one's saying that though, are they?
Everyone will have sympathy for the families and those who've been injured and think that they deserve the best. Point is, they're no more special than any family that's suffered loss or person that's that's been hurt as a civilian.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 15:44, closed)
I didn't join the forces.
I didn't join because I knew that there was a very real and serious risk of being shot at, blown up, maimed or otherwise hurt in a bad way and didn't want that. Every single forces applicant has that same choice. There is no conscription.

I respect people in the forces who do a difficult job, which I would never do. That is in the same way I respect those who care for people, save lives and others who make the world a better place. But! This doesn't make soldiers special above and beyond everyone else. They CHOSE to join up. By implication they CHOSE to risk life and limb.

They deserve the same sympathy and treatment anyone who has suffered serious injury does, but ask yourself how many other people have been left disabled and on lifes scrapheap from civilian jobs?

Construction workers do a dangerous job with potentially lethal risks, so do civilian pilots, firemen, oilrig workers, chemical plant workers and many more. They all choose to do it.

Do they get special treatment? Does the builder who's paralysed and unable to work not deserve charity? Do the family of a rig worker not need comfort when their loved one is lost in a helicopter accident as happened recently? Doesn't everyone deserve a chance to rebuild?
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 15:42, closed)

(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 20:20, closed)
They signed their lives away, nobody else did.
OK, so they may have been stupid enough to believe politicians about the role of the army, but why should I feel sorry for them?
If there is a problem with the terms of the contracts not been met then help for retards should be suing the government or arranging for the lying cocks to be shot.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 18:49, closed)
So you're a terrorist and you hate Britain?
For shame!
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:42, closed)

For shame!
For the lolz.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:44, closed)
Laughed at that despite my opposing views, well done!

Have loads to say on this but can't be arsed tapping at my phone keys for a week.

But aye, it's a piece of piss innit! Lets go sign up for a tour or two! No?!
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:47, closed)
At no point did I say it was a piece of piss, dunderhead.
As for the terrorist and Brit-hater - I'd assumed you were joking. I still think you were. But on the off-chance that you weren't, are you really thick enough to think that the only alternative to supporting HfH and getting damp about school-leavers with guns is terrorism?

I'm utterly idifferent about Britain. I was born here, and I live here. There's nothing more to be said, is there?
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:54, closed)
*is one of those halfwits who line the street of WB*
*has been doing so since before it became popular and the cool thing to do*
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 14:45, closed)
no flaming from me
i thought i was the only one who thought like this
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:24, closed)
I quite agree
As said above many other people risk their lives in the line of their jobs, none more so, and more obviously so, than that of the soldier.

I'm not saying that soldiers should be not given help and the families not given sympathy but people who sign up must be aware of the risks.

There is a local family near here who are petitioning to have their sons name put on the WWII memorial. WTF, he didn't die in WWII.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 20:27, closed)
There was me thinking H4H existed because the Government reneged on their support for injured combatants, and left the gullible public to put their hands in their pockets (yet again) to pay for expensive rehab.
It's not about the job, it's about a broken promise to broken bodies.
I'm a pacifist, but I support this cause because the victims were conned into believing they'd be looked after.
Or am I misguided and deluded too?
(, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 22:25, closed)
No you are not

(, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 7:48, closed)
I agree that the Forces are a job, and that everyone who signs up does so with at least some idea of the basic risks. I agree that at that point, the moment that ink joins form they do not automatically become a hero. I also agree with your point about other forms of recognition for genuine heros and the overall devaluation of heroism by the overuse of the word.

However, I do feel that when someone joins the services they are entering into a mutual agreement - I risk my life and in return the State stands fully behind me, provides the best possible training, equipment and support if anything does happen. It's called the Armed Forces Covenant.


I don't think that anyone could disagree that the Forces are underfunded. Or rather, that they don't have enough cash to do what they are being asked to do and fully uphold their side of the Covenant. Many may think that the funding should be slashed. Okay, but then so should commitments. The point is that when soldiers sign up, they expect (reasonably, due to the Covenant) a level of care that the Forces cannot currently provide. So if it falls to outside agencies to help them along then they should be able to do so. No, not all injured soldiers will be heros. Perhaps most of them won't be. But calling the organisation Help for Mediocres would lack quite the same punch.

Therefore, to me, calling themselves HfH is morally justifiable.

ps. always avoided these kind of arguments. Slightly nervous awaiting any responses.
(, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 12:49, closed)
no flames here
If you don't understand the risks, you shouldn't join up.

As for the word hero, I agree it's bandied about far too frequently and loosely.

This is the kind of guy I think of when I think of the word "heroic" : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Cyril_Jackson
(, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 18:42, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Latest, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, ... 1