Did Covid Change Your Lifestyle?
ChatterBank2 mins ago
What a way to treat a hero
44 Answers
In the week that we hear of yet another British soldier killed in Afghanistan, we read this shocking story.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/60026 /Soldier-is-refused-a-bed-by-hotel-because-he- is-in-the-Army
Perhaps soldiers do sometimes have a little too much drink, but then they are not the only ones.
If this soldier had been drunk when he tried to book-in, then the hotel receptionist would have been in the right to refuse entry, (or indeed if he had arrived back at the hotel drunk), but there was no report that either was the case. He was simply refused to book-into the hotel, because he was a soldier.
This hotel should have it's licence taken away.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/60026 /Soldier-is-refused-a-bed-by-hotel-because-he- is-in-the-Army
Perhaps soldiers do sometimes have a little too much drink, but then they are not the only ones.
If this soldier had been drunk when he tried to book-in, then the hotel receptionist would have been in the right to refuse entry, (or indeed if he had arrived back at the hotel drunk), but there was no report that either was the case. He was simply refused to book-into the hotel, because he was a soldier.
This hotel should have it's licence taken away.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Anyone who has been in a battle zone is indeed a hero, perhaps he hasn't been decorated for bravery, but then maybe he has, you do not know. It is of no consequence if he has or not. Anyone that has fought side by side with his comrades is a hero, they fight as a unit for a common cause
Really - anyone?
So were the Nazi soldiers 'heroes'?
How about the Americans in Vietnam?
What about Cpl Donald Payne? Was he a hero?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5360432.stm
Do you actually understand what you are writing? Talk about one brain cell.......
Really - anyone?
So were the Nazi soldiers 'heroes'?
How about the Americans in Vietnam?
What about Cpl Donald Payne? Was he a hero?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5360432.stm
Do you actually understand what you are writing? Talk about one brain cell.......
I have to say, I'm with AOG on this one. Not because the guy was a hero or anything, but there was really no logical reason for him to be barred entry. If they'd had trouble with soldiers in the past they're well within their rights to refuse the custom of those individuals, but this is really quite stupid.
I don't see that it's any less ignorant to generalise on someone's desirability as a guest based on their occupation (well, except if they're a mob boss or something...) than on thier ethnicity or sexual orientation. If it's illegal - and quite rightly - to do so on the latter grounds, surely the same criteria apply for occupations?
Obviously I'd support the hotel if they had reasonable grounds to refuse him service. But they really don't seem to.
And in any case, at the very least shouldn't this all have been made very clear to him once he booked rather than just deny him at the last minute?
He wasn't - he was refused because of his occupation - which the hotel deem to be a high risk category.
Which they've done for no logical reason that I can see.
The man in question is not a 'hero' - he has not been decorated for bravery. He is a solider, doing a job he has chosen which currently involves an above average chance of service in a war zone.
I agree with this. But then why refuse to serve him if he's just an average guy doing a job?
Talk to an Iraqui woman who has had her home destroyed and her husband and children killed by an invading force who are there for dubious reasons.
1) The guy has served in Afghanistan, not Iraq
2) This is pretty irrelevant
3) Are you suggesting that a hotel is justified in refusing clients - giving them no advance warning of any sort -solely on political grounds? That seems kinda weak.
I don't see that it's any less ignorant to generalise on someone's desirability as a guest based on their occupation (well, except if they're a mob boss or something...) than on thier ethnicity or sexual orientation. If it's illegal - and quite rightly - to do so on the latter grounds, surely the same criteria apply for occupations?
Obviously I'd support the hotel if they had reasonable grounds to refuse him service. But they really don't seem to.
And in any case, at the very least shouldn't this all have been made very clear to him once he booked rather than just deny him at the last minute?
He wasn't - he was refused because of his occupation - which the hotel deem to be a high risk category.
Which they've done for no logical reason that I can see.
The man in question is not a 'hero' - he has not been decorated for bravery. He is a solider, doing a job he has chosen which currently involves an above average chance of service in a war zone.
I agree with this. But then why refuse to serve him if he's just an average guy doing a job?
Talk to an Iraqui woman who has had her home destroyed and her husband and children killed by an invading force who are there for dubious reasons.
1) The guy has served in Afghanistan, not Iraq
2) This is pretty irrelevant
3) Are you suggesting that a hotel is justified in refusing clients - giving them no advance warning of any sort -solely on political grounds? That seems kinda weak.
He wasn't - he was refused because of his occupation - which the hotel deem to be a high risk category.
Which they've done for no logical reason that I can see.
But the point is that it is their business and they have a business model.
Now I assume that this hotel has had problems in the past with service personnel staying in one of their hotels and doing some damage or similar.
American Amusements have a turnover in this country of close to �10 Million. They would (presumably) have statistics on what sort of clients come and also which clients cause damage, cause complaints etc.
If the hotel said that they would not accept a booking of 10 men aged between 25 and 35, would you accept that as okay?
Now it may be a local choir, or it may be a stag night, but if their statistics show that these groups usually cause complaints from other residents, then 'them's the rules'.
Some times a manager may change the rules as he is aware that this is a choir - but a 'jobsworth' person may look at the rules rather than the individual circumstances.
Which they've done for no logical reason that I can see.
But the point is that it is their business and they have a business model.
Now I assume that this hotel has had problems in the past with service personnel staying in one of their hotels and doing some damage or similar.
American Amusements have a turnover in this country of close to �10 Million. They would (presumably) have statistics on what sort of clients come and also which clients cause damage, cause complaints etc.
If the hotel said that they would not accept a booking of 10 men aged between 25 and 35, would you accept that as okay?
Now it may be a local choir, or it may be a stag night, but if their statistics show that these groups usually cause complaints from other residents, then 'them's the rules'.
Some times a manager may change the rules as he is aware that this is a choir - but a 'jobsworth' person may look at the rules rather than the individual circumstances.
I read the article.HHe is a solsdier , doingh a job , for a wage .
Some may even call it a vocation of sorts .
But i didnt see any mention of him being a hero ?
IOs he a hero because of what hes done ?
Or just avhero because hes in the army?
If you can generalise as easily as that then why arent alll soldiers thugs and louts like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread ?
Romanticism again ??
Some may even call it a vocation of sorts .
But i didnt see any mention of him being a hero ?
IOs he a hero because of what hes done ?
Or just avhero because hes in the army?
If you can generalise as easily as that then why arent alll soldiers thugs and louts like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread ?
Romanticism again ??
If the hotel said that they would not accept a booking of 10 men aged between 25 and 35, would you accept that as okay?
My gut response is No. But I see your point.
Thing is, I'm not sure your analogy works. Let's say the hotel reviews its stats and it says that large groups of young men are frequently responsible for disturbances. Then I can sort of see your argument.
Now, let's apply the same thought to a situaton where the hotel has stats suggesting army personnel are regularly responsible for disturbances. It's just not logical to say 'right, we're going to bar all individuals who are in the armed forces'. Maybe if it was a group it'd be different - but as far as I can tell it was just one guy. There's a world of difference even if the statistics don't take number of bookings into account.
And that's even if they have statistics rather than just going by rule of thumb.
[Reading through the above I hope what I'm saying is as clear to you as it is in my head... one way to find out I guess...]
If it really is a foolish jobsworth, then it's good they've apologised but the fact is that employee has inconvenienced a potential client (as the argument implies that he would have been accepted had that person not been there) and also damaged the business of the hotel. Logically they should be punised somehow.
My gut response is No. But I see your point.
Thing is, I'm not sure your analogy works. Let's say the hotel reviews its stats and it says that large groups of young men are frequently responsible for disturbances. Then I can sort of see your argument.
Now, let's apply the same thought to a situaton where the hotel has stats suggesting army personnel are regularly responsible for disturbances. It's just not logical to say 'right, we're going to bar all individuals who are in the armed forces'. Maybe if it was a group it'd be different - but as far as I can tell it was just one guy. There's a world of difference even if the statistics don't take number of bookings into account.
And that's even if they have statistics rather than just going by rule of thumb.
[Reading through the above I hope what I'm saying is as clear to you as it is in my head... one way to find out I guess...]
If it really is a foolish jobsworth, then it's good they've apologised but the fact is that employee has inconvenienced a potential client (as the argument implies that he would have been accepted had that person not been there) and also damaged the business of the hotel. Logically they should be punised somehow.
Amazing how some people leap out of the woodwork, isn't it? So this whole incident seems to be down to one over-zealous receptionist, and suddenly MPs are falling over each other to look good, tabloid hacks are slavering and dribbling over another "you couldn't make it up" story, and this hotel is getting abusive phone calls just because one member of staff got a bit carried away. How very civilised.
BTW, is this hotel in Woking, Surrey (as per the Daily Express) or Wokingham, Berkshire (as per Gromit's link)? Completely different towns.
BTW, is this hotel in Woking, Surrey (as per the Daily Express) or Wokingham, Berkshire (as per Gromit's link)? Completely different towns.
A manager in the letter said the hotel had in recent months "experienced some rather serious incidents" resulting from the stay of personnel from a local barracks and staff had been requested to be "cautious" in taking future bookings from the armed forces.
Managers were asked to assess cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7598523.stm
Things become a bit clearer.
Managers were asked to assess cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7598523.stm
Things become a bit clearer.
Thank you Lottie for your words of support.
AOG - I fail to see why being an opononent of war (surely any sane person is?) makes me a coward of any culture?
As for your response to my point about the woman - that is simply knee-jerk reaction - again - which rather proves the point I made.
For the record, I do not agree with the way this soldier was treated - I simply don't feel that shifting the ehmpasis of a badly implemented rule justifies huffing and puffing about ill treatment of 'heroes'.
As I said, a sense of perspective does help.
AOG - I fail to see why being an opononent of war (surely any sane person is?) makes me a coward of any culture?
As for your response to my point about the woman - that is simply knee-jerk reaction - again - which rather proves the point I made.
For the record, I do not agree with the way this soldier was treated - I simply don't feel that shifting the ehmpasis of a badly implemented rule justifies huffing and puffing about ill treatment of 'heroes'.
As I said, a sense of perspective does help.
I won't go into the "hero" issue as per your question - I'm sure the word "soldier" would have sufficed.
*However, the the thick-squaddie git it happened to probably deserved it because he was too lazy or stupid to learn anything at school and, therefore, the only option left open to him was the army. "See the world", he thought, "and get p*ssed and sh*g your way through it" So he trains in some British barrack town where our young thu.g ...err... hero, learns to beat up locals - great!! Then he learns how to shoot people, that's all part of the fun! Ok, he might get posted to a war zone - but he's a hero! Think of the stories he can tell when he gets back!
Got your hackles up, AOG?
It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, I know, but you never make those do you?
Please don't give me that about the Iraqi woman who has lost her husband, children. and home, this is most likely a woman who has bombs concealed around her waist, ready to send even her own people to meet their Allah."
* - with apologies to forces past and present, this is not what I actually believe, (although true in an extremely tiny minority of cases) - but if AOG's sweeping generalisations can be true, then so can mine.
*However, the the thick-squaddie git it happened to probably deserved it because he was too lazy or stupid to learn anything at school and, therefore, the only option left open to him was the army. "See the world", he thought, "and get p*ssed and sh*g your way through it" So he trains in some British barrack town where our young thu.g ...err... hero, learns to beat up locals - great!! Then he learns how to shoot people, that's all part of the fun! Ok, he might get posted to a war zone - but he's a hero! Think of the stories he can tell when he gets back!
Got your hackles up, AOG?
It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, I know, but you never make those do you?
Please don't give me that about the Iraqi woman who has lost her husband, children. and home, this is most likely a woman who has bombs concealed around her waist, ready to send even her own people to meet their Allah."
* - with apologies to forces past and present, this is not what I actually believe, (although true in an extremely tiny minority of cases) - but if AOG's sweeping generalisations can be true, then so can mine.
Please don't give me that about the Iraqi woman who has lost her husband, children. and home, this is most likely a woman who has bombs concealed around her waist, ready to send even her own people to meet their Allah."
Woah. How did I miss this?
Okay, I distance myself as far as possible from this statement.
Woah. How did I miss this?
Okay, I distance myself as far as possible from this statement.
i don't see what the big deal is here. lets face it the majority of British soldiers are thugs who are too dim to hold down a job in any other profession. i dont find it suprising that a hotel would be reluctant to provide accomodation to these type of individuals just the same as they would be for ex-criminals.
There are one or two posters on this site that consider that if a person chooses to make a career in the armed forces, they must be too thick to take up any other employment.
So far no one except me have sprung to their defence.
Surely there must be some ex. or serving military personal on this site, are you going to stand by and let them call you thick?
So far no one except me have sprung to their defence.
Surely there must be some ex. or serving military personal on this site, are you going to stand by and let them call you thick?
