Please boycott Metro Hotel in Woking - read for more details

mymatebob

This thread is turning into the the film A Few Good Men

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

moore493

mymatebob wrote: »

This thread is turning into the the film A Few Good Men

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

You are quite right. And I have become exceedingly bored with it.

Going out to commit mindless acts of violence on unsuspecting innocent civilians!!!!

As John Rambo famously said "there are no innocent civilians"

Now he did have some serious problems poor fellow.

uktim29

budgetflyer wrote: »

But in this pathetic excuse of a country its ok to refuse a war hero:mad:

Why is he a hero?

Or did you just write that because you think it sounds good in an argument?

moore493

uktim29 wrote: »

Why is he a hero?

Or did you just write that because you think it sounds good in an argument?

Because he has more important things to worry about than holes in his £20.00 jumper.

What a joke.

Hope you got your money back must have been upsetting for you.

Cardelia

MoneyHoney wrote: »

Why is this a good reason? Young men technicly belong to a group identified as having a greater than average chance of causing trouble but we don't apply that as a reason to ban them from places.

Oh yes we do. And it's not just men:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7523084.stm

not_loaded wrote: »

Yes, this blind prejudice is a real problem isn’t it?

They turned him away because when asked for ID he produced his military ID. Thus they excluded him because he was a soldier. The hotel management have admitted this.

I've not denied he was turned away because he was a soldier. The whole point of me posting on this thread was to say that turning someone away on the basis that they're a soldier is not necessarily a bad thing. If a hotelier wants to enforce a "no squaddies" rule then that is their prerogative. Yes, in this situation, some common sense could have been applied because the soldier was quite clearly not drunk out of his mind and threatening violence with a group of friends. But it's still the hotelier's decision whether or not to admit squaddies.

Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with some landlords refusing to let their property to students? What about landlords who say "no pets"? Or "no small children"? They're all perfectly legal, and understandable.

I agree 100% with you moore493. I have lived, travelled and worked in military areas nearly all my life. Some of that work involved regularly visiting pubs, clubs and hotels. I can honestly say that not once in forty years have I seen soldiers behaving violently.

You may not have seen it, but I have. If you're dismissing my views as "blind prejudice" because it doesn't tie in with your personal experience, then I should dismiss your view as equally irrelevant because it doesn't tie in with my personal experience. But that's a stupid way of looking at the world, so I try not to do that.

If currently serving soldiers can admit that the soldier stereotype is true, then how can you dismiss my personal experience of the stereotype as "blind prejudice" without looking just a little bit silly?

Cardelia

moore493 wrote: »

The thing about stereotypes is they are not realistic, if you beleive a stereotype you are being ignorant. You cannot exclude people because of a stereotype. Besides that where is your research that soldiers have been identified as a group more likely to be involved in violent acts, was it a Goverment sponsored study??

Trying to argue the soldier stereotype is unrealistic is pointless, not least because you've already admitted the opposite. And yes, you can exclude people on the basis of a stereotype. See my examples in the above post - curfews on the young. No pets in rented accommodation. No students. All enforced on the basis of a stereotype.

I actually said that "[soldiers] belong to a group of people who have been identified as having a greater than average chance of causing trouble". Who's identified them? Well, Kipling for one. And if hoteliers thought that soldiers wouldn't cause any trouble, why would they ban them from staying at their hotel?

meester

bagold wrote: »

There's a Holiday Inn just 2 minutes walk round the corner.

Indeed there is.

But what's your connection to this, Mr. newly registered user who seems to know the area quite well?

moore493

Cardelia wrote: »

Oh yes we do. And it's not just men:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7523084.stm


I've not denied he was turned away because he was a soldier. The whole point of me posting on this thread was to say that turning someone away on the basis that they're a soldier is not necessarily a bad thing. If a hotelier wants to enforce a "no squaddies" rule then that is their prerogative. Yes, in this situation, some common sense could have been applied because the soldier was quite clearly not drunk out of his mind and threatening violence with a group of friends. But it's still the hotelier's decision whether or not to admit squaddies.

Let me ask you this. Do you have a problem with some landlords refusing to let their property to students? What about landlords who say "no pets"? Or "no small children"? They're all perfectly legal, and understandable.

You may not have seen it, but I have. If you're dismissing my views as "blind prejudice" because it doesn't tie in with your personal experience, then I should dismiss your view as equally irrelevant because it doesn't tie in with my personal experience. But that's a stupid way of looking at the world, so I try not to do that.

If currently serving soldiers can admit that the soldier stereotype is true, then how can you dismiss my personal experience of the stereotype as "blind prejudice" without looking just a little bit silly?

Please inwardly digest.

As I have previously explained, the whole point of stereotypes is that they are a misreprerentation an exagerated truth, they are not the truth in themselves, you need to grasp that concept before you can even enter into discussion.

I am fully accepting of the fact that some soldiers although few in numbers are involved in violent drunken behavior but so are groups of people, what about groups of young women under 25 drunken and frequently seen in all cities across our country, I find them far more aggresive and threatening and far more high profile. Squaddies drunken behaviour is easy to latch on to by the media and makes for good coverage.

It seems to me that you have lumped your prejudised veiw of servicemen on every soldier.
And yes I do have a problem with all discrimination, students pets disabled, children, read some history see were it all ends.

Are you a young female student.

Soldiers do not discriminate who they defend or risk their lives for, good job they dont share that attitude isnt it.

meester

Voyager2002 wrote: »

To correct the story, he was actually visiting a wounded colleague.

Anyway, I would prefer not to stay in hotels patronised by people who have undergone a degree of brutalisation as part of their training.

The Metro Hotel is part of an amusement complex/bowling alley. It's not exactly Claridges. It's pretty much where I'd expect a single solider to stay TBH.

meester

interesting how little many people seem to care about the people who lay down their lives to protect them. You certainly wouldn't get the response seen on this thread if the same thing happened in the USA.