Goon Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Just watched the news footage of the olympic torch being taken up the steps of the memorial to mark armed forces day. The bearer carried the torch up the steps and was flanked by soldiers either side of him. All very nice, lovely bit of ceremony, but then closely following the torch bearer were the police escorts who accompany the torch on its journey. Now if there was ever a situation where these escorts were not needed at all then surely it is when there are two lines of soldiers either side of the route. Do we not even trust members of our armed forces or is it that we do not consider them capable of handling a situation where the torch is threatened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bus man Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The soldiers were part of the ceremony the "grey police" are part of the torch protection team they are there to protect it . If a police officer wresles someone to the ground then it is part of the arrest if a soldier did it then there could be legal problems . Just let them get on with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 The soldiers were part of the ceremony the "grey police" are part of the torch protection team they are there to protect it . If a police officer wresles someone to the ground then it is part of the arrest if a soldier did it then there could be legal problems . Just let them get on with it I'm fully aware of this, I was just commenting on how odd the whole thing looked. the presence of the security men seemed to take something away from the ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Should the Olympic Torch even be associated with the glorification of the military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Should the Olympic Torch even be associated with the glorification of the military? Why not? Some of the young men in our forces are the best in the country, for example Ben Parkinson the severely injured paratrooper who inspires us all to the point of tears. Or Pte Barry who suffered a head injury before going on to rescue his comrades. Not to mention the thousands of young men and women that serve this country without wanting something in return or whinging about what they are entitled to. Not glorifying the military but acknowledging a section of society we should be proud of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I just don't think it fits with the Olympic ideal. What does fighting a war and killing people have to do with sport? Mind you, the torch relay was introduced in the 1936 Berlin Olympics as part of the German government's attempt to promote its National Socialist ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Should the Olympic Torch even be associated with the glorification of the military? Or for pop stars etc: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Can't do that with the police, you have to give them one job at a time or they will crack up and have to retire on full pay. Messing around with their routine is not good you have to treat police like they have Asperger's. Why would the military want to protect the torch anyway, it's not on the oath and they have enough to do. As said, its was armed forces day that's all, nothing to do with glory only appreciation of the sacrifice of people who allow you to spout rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.