Let us respect the Dead

[davenportram]

Just been made aware of this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8599504/War-dead-to-be-driven-down-side-streets-to-avoid-the-public.html

War dead to be driven down side streets to avoid the public

The bodies of soldiers killed in Afghanistan will no longer be honoured with a public parade but will be driven through back streets to avoid upset, it has emerged.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01930/funeral_1930637c

Wootton Bassett was the first town in more than 100 years to be granted the 'Royal' title in recognition of its parades for fallen soldiers Photo: PA

By Victoria Ward

1:20PM BST 26 Jun 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/template/ver1-0/i/share/comments373 Comments

For several years, the flag-draped coffins of fallen servicemen and women have been met by large crowds who line the streets to pay their respects as they return to British soil.

But repatriation flights are to be diverted and will no longer be flown back to RAF Lyneham and through the small Wiltshire town of Royal Wootton Bassett, where they were saluted come rain or shine.

Instead, they will arrive back to RAF Brize Norton, where they will be driven through the back gate and then down side roads, neatly avoiding the nearby town of Carterton, as they make their way to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

Andrew Robathan, Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, admitted that the decision to avoid public scenes of emotion had been taken deliberately.

“The side gate was seen by the Ministry of Defence and the police as the most appropriate way to take out future cortèges,” he told Radio Oxford.

Related Articles

• 
  Day after Remembrance Sunday 'should be a Bank Holiday'
  15 Jun 2011
  
• 
  Royal Wootton Bassett
  16 Mar 2011
  
• 
  Wootton Bassett's Royal honour
  16 Mar 2011
  
• 
  Wootton Bassett tributes to fallen soldiers will end
  17 May 2010
  

“I am not sure taking coffins in hearses past schools, past families, past married quarters is necessarily the thing that everybody would wish to see … the focus must be on the families of the dead service personnel. They are the people who care most. That is where our focus is.”

The Ministry of Defence said the route from RAF Brize Norton, where flights had landed until the runway was closed for repair work in 2007, was decided by West Oxfordshire District Council but claimed that the side gate would be used to ensure minimal disruption to normal operations.

A spokesman added: “Consideration has also been given to ensure the dignity and solemnity of the military repatriation ceremony is maintained and to those who are arriving at RAF Brize Norton about to deploy on operations.”

More than 2,000 campaigners have joined a Facebook group calling for the repatriation route to be diverted through Carterton.

One member said: "A good friend of mine is a member of this group and her son was killed in Afghanistan, he was repatriated at RAF Lyneham and was driven through Royal Wootton Bassett.

"The families get so much comfort from the respect shown and it would be a massive blow to families if their fallen hero was ushered in quietly like a dirty secret."

An Oxfordshire County Council spokesman said that a memorial garden would be built along the new route, where bereaved families will be able to gather alongside members of the public and members of the Royal British Legion.

"Far from keeping it a secret, we are creating the garden because we know people want to pay their respects," he said.

Wootton Bassett was the first town in more than 100 years to be granted the “Royal” title in recognition of its parades for fallen soldiers.

John Beauchamp, 80, a local Navy veteran, said: “Wootton Bassett has done a damn good job and anyone who tries to hide it away should emigrate.”

Personally I think it should be left up to the individual families if they want the repatriation to be public, it shouldn't be forced on families to hide it away. If it were my Brother, Son or Dad i would be proud of them and want them to be given a good welcome home.

I know there is a garden being built, but why should the dead be driven out of the "side door" and not given the respect and dignity of using the main entrance.

[uttoxram75]

There is a train of thought among some politicians that the public's appetite for war may be weakened by a constant stream of dead soldiers coming home.

The Americans believed this was a major factor in their people turning against the Vietnam war.

The tributes at Wootton Bassett happened spontaneously and maybe they are using this excuse to stop it before it has a sapping effect on public opinion. Its not televised as much now. Have the media got bored by showing it or have they been "asked" to tone it down?

I know families who have found great comfort in going to Wootton Bassett and seeing their loved ones being given tremendous respect by their fellow countrymen.

It'd be a criminal and cowardly act if this is proven to be a political decision by weak, fearful men who send others to die but can't justify the reason for doing so.

[froggg]

Wrong on every level, sadly policing costs will be a major factor in this decision, unacceptable penny pinching in my opinion:(

[Duracell]

It'd be a criminal and cowardly act if this is proven to be a political decision by weak, fearful men who send others to die but can't justify the reason for doing so.

Not to mention all the innocent Iraqis and Afghans who will never get the chance to have such a memorial to their own lives.

The war is a mess, a complete mess. We've got our young men dying out there, and I'm not even sure they all understand what they're really fighting for. The Falklands and World War 2, we knew what we were fighting for and we unaminously believed in it. That's not the same in Afghanistan, and it's such a waste of human life.

[davenportram]

The war is a mess you're right, but that's no reason to remove the parades.

[dcfcdavecov]

They get a rousing funeral if they wish. Pun not intended - ok it was.

All trumpets and stuff like that. Don't think it's necessary for people to demand their bodies are taken through a town.

Maybe it all still go ahead if the public sector had'nt had a hissy fit over having similar pensions and working lifes to the rest of us.

£600 million quid that cost.

Bar Stools.

[Duracell]

The war is a mess you're right, but that's no reason to remove the parades.

Not saying it is, but I think everyone's lost sight over what's right and what needs to be done, which is why it happened.

[davenportram]

I see what you mean.

[Leeds Ram]

poor decision, it should be up to the families. I think the war in afghanistan was right however we need to come home soon as soon as we have trained up the afghan army and police, we are out of iraq just afghanistan in a few years now, the u.s. are pulling out over 1/3 of their military force there very soon.

[StaffsRam]

we are out of iraq just afghanistan in a few years now

Until we commit to the inevitable hand-holding exercise in Iran eventually.

[Leeds Ram]

i can almost guarantee that WE won't go into iran

[StaffsRam]

Depends on whether or not the Americans go in. If they do, then we'll be there holding their hands.

Iran can't be allowed to have 'the bomb', if they continue to push their nuclear agenda then eventually the west will intervene, because they know that if they don't, then Israel will.

[Leeds Ram]

america won't go in, iran is pretty close to a revolution with the grand ayatollah and the president on the rocks, the people will speak, if they develop the bomb, israel and the saudi's will go in or the saudi's will develop a nuclear weapon and they will deal with it.

[StaffsRam]

The Saudis would never go in.

Israel has a better equipped but smaller military (Iran's potential military force, including reservists is over 11m - Israel's entire population is under 8m) - they wouldn't win in a conventional invasion - plus, to invade would severely weaken the defence of their own borders from other quarters. Israel would intervene, but it would likely do so through the use of its own bombs. Israel could mount a campaign of continued airstrikes against nuclear facilities, but the success of those would be impossible to predict. To guarantee getting the job done would necessitate boots on the ground.

A public uprising and complete regime change is the only way that the west won't need to directly intervene. That could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Iran's a completely different kettle of fish to Egypt, Syria or Libya.

[Leeds Ram]

the saudi's have said that if iran has a nuclear weapon they will also build one, it is a different kettle of fish towards egypt, syria and libya, the police and regime have a much tighter grip than these others, it is possible like you say but unlikely. I am not sure if a lot of Iranians would fight if there was a war because of the last elections fueled up a lot of hate towards the current regime, as well it is about equipment, organisation etc, just having a big force doesn't guarantee everything, not sure how much better Israel is than iran at such things though. I think air strikes would have great precision and good effect but like you say impossible to tell, i don't think we would go in though because we could very easily lose and i don't think we could afford it, i think we would commit bombing raids and financial and military support to Israel and any other countries that wanted to participate.

[StaffsRam]

Saudi Arabia's stance is largely irrelevant. Iran won't be overly concerned in SA having the nuke providing that they already have it themselves. Iran want it as a safeguard against future interference from the west, and Israel.

Any uprising in Iran is up against it simply due to the sheer numbers involved in the Iranian military and security forces. Uprisings, insurgency is dealt with swiftly and powerfully. That won't change unless there's a change in mindset amongst the military/security forces, which is unlikely. International pressure and sanctions could be brought to bear, but we're already trying that and they couldn't care less.

Israel has a superbly trained and equipped military, as like ourselves they have a very close relationship with the United States. That will only ever get them so far though. Iraq was technologically superior to Iran in the 80s after the revolution, and Saddam thought that he'd chance his arm to reclaim disputed land and expand his power in the region. In the end, sheer weight of numbers pushed them all the way back and they were extremely luck to get away with a truce being called.

Eventually I think the west, America, and Israel will all be involved in sorting out the Iran problem. The Americans are itching to get in there, and have been for some time. If they go in, we will follow, irrespective of cost. It will only be done though once we've guaranteed that other Islamic countries in the region won't get involved. That will be much harder to achieve - which may be where Israel comes in handy as a bargaining chip. If there's one thing that the arab world would hate more than the Stars & Stripes flying over Tehran, it's the star of David flying over it instead. A threat of "either we go in or they do" should do the trick.

The ultra cynical view is that you just pull everyone out of the region and then let Israel off the leash. They'd use the nuke on Iran, and God knows who else tomorrow, and have no regrets about doing so. Thankfully, even more unlikely.

[Leeds Ram]

the americans aren't itching to go into iran at all, the last thing obama wants or needs is another war. Iraq had a similar reputation as iran i feel, the saudi's with a weapon could prevent iran from doing anything hostile and make it a bit like the cold war with destruction for each. The saudi's want stability in the region which iran doesn't. Iran don't have a nuclear weapon and we don't know how close they are to obtaining it, also with Ahmadinejad's future looking less certain will that be the main priority with iran at the moment, or will it be the president just trying to survive. The international sanctions aren't having a great effect, but again if there was a real uprising would the security forces be that committed to stop them? after the elections in 2009 that could be in question and with the presidents position in question, who does their loyalty lie with, the grand ayatollah or the president? Iran originally wanted a nuclear weapon to wipe isreal off the map not just to avoid interference.

[uttoxram75]

Saudi Arabia's stance is largely irrelevant. Iran won't be overly concerned in SA having the nuke providing that they already have it themselves. Iran want it as a safeguard against future interference from the west, and Israel.

Any uprising in Iran is up against it simply due to the sheer numbers involved in the Iranian military and security forces. Uprisings, insurgency is dealt with swiftly and powerfully. That won't change unless there's a change in mindset amongst the military/security forces, which is unlikely. International pressure and sanctions could be brought to bear, but we're already trying that and they couldn't care less.

Israel has a superbly trained and equipped military, as like ourselves they have a very close relationship with the United States. That will only ever get them so far though. Iraq was technologically superior to Iran in the 80s after the revolution, and Saddam thought that he'd chance his arm to reclaim disputed land and expand his power in the region. In the end, sheer weight of numbers pushed them all the way back and they were extremely luck to get away with a truce being called.

Eventually I think the west, America, and Israel will all be involved in sorting out the Iran problem. The Americans are itching to get in there, and have been for some time. If they go in, we will follow, irrespective of cost. It will only be done though once we've guaranteed that other Islamic countries in the region won't get involved. That will be much harder to achieve - which may be where Israel comes in handy as a bargaining chip. If there's one thing that the arab world would hate more than the Stars & Stripes flying over Tehran, it's the star of David flying over it instead. A threat of "either we go in or they do" should do the trick.

The ultra cynical view is that you just pull everyone out of the region and then let Israel off the leash. They'd use the nuke on Iran, and God knows who else tomorrow, and have no regrets about doing so. Thankfully, even more unlikely.

Good points about the uprising Staffie, the uprisings and insurgencies only happen where the military refuse to shoot to kill their own people.

Atm, Iran, Saudi Arabia would not hesitate, China have already proved that it works (Tianamen Square), Libya have done it and despite us and the French bombing the ***** out of them, Gaddafi still controls the country.

I always wonder if our troops would open fire on us if we were in that situation.

[StaffsRam]

There's a sentiment amongst many high level politicians in the United States (including the Secretary of Defence (Panetta), the Secretary of State (Clinton), as well as all of the fancied Republican nominees for 2012 - Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Palin), that the greatest threat to global security today is Iran, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Americans priorities would read as such;

1) Iran ceases development of nuclear weapons technology

2) Sanctions brought against Iran which ultimately force them to cease development of nuclear weapons technology

3) Non-invasive surgical airstrikes to take out R&D and enrichment facilities that ultimately forces them to cease

4) Invasive conventional warfare directly forces them to cease

5) Nuclear strikes directly force them to cease

1 isn't going to happen. 2 - we've tried, and it gets us nowhere. 3 - won't get the job done as you can't be sure that you've got everything. This leaves 4 and 5, of which 4 is obviously preferable.

Obama, is on record as saying that Iran, along with North Korea are the only nations that he can envisage the United States using a nuclear strike against. Further to that, you have Clinton, Panetta, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Palin, and no doubt countless others, supporting a stance that refuses to rule out the use of nuclear strikes if they're the only way of preventing Iran from getting the bomb.

America are itching to get into Iran, because eventually if they don't, then we're left with option 5 above. At the end of the day it all comes down to a few simple truths;

1) Iran will NOT cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology

2) The United States will NOT allow them to get it

A nuclear Islamic state is a direct threat to the security of Israel, and if you think our relationship with the US is 'special' then you should really have a look at the one between Israel and the US.

Saudi Arabia is irrelevant - any scenario that leaves Iran with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States.

Barring a complete overthrow of the current regime and Iran becoming a lot more open, war with Iran is inevitable.

[ladyram]

They get a rousing funeral if they wish. Pun not intended - ok it was.

All trumpets and stuff like that. Don't think it's necessary for people to demand their bodies are taken through a town.

Maybe it all still go ahead if the public sector had'nt had a hissy fit over having similar pensions and working lifes to the rest of us.

£600 million quid that cost.

Bar Stools.

Perhaps people want to hi-light exactly why these soldiers have died - they are the ones protecting us all and defending the freedoms we have.

I think the repatriation ceremony is hugely important for the bereaved families and all those who attend to pay their respects. I watched a documentary about Royal Wootten Bassett and it's residents and I found it very moving - it was painfully obvious how important this procession is to everyone involved.

Those soldiers deserve every bit of recognition they get and those who think differently should hang their heads in shame. I suggest they try living in a soldiers shoes for a week, I'm sure they'd think differently then.

Ushering them in through a side door on the quiet is not good enough, in fact I think it's an insult to them.