Disabled [British] veterans jeered at swimming pool
Injured soldiers who lost their limbs fighting for their country have been driven from a swimming pool training session by jeering members of the public.
The men, injured during tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, were taking part in a rehabilitation session at a leisure centre, when two women demanded they be removed from the pool. They claimed that the soldiers “hadn’t paid” and might scare the children. (Telegraph)
Oh. My. God. I’m absolutely appalled and outraged. I agree completely with Admiral Lord Boyce:
“These people are beneath contempt and everything should be done to get their names and publish them in the press,” he said. “It is contemptible that people who have given up their limbs for their country should be so abused when they are trying to get fit again.”
I just finished sending an email to the British Ministry of Defence expressing my support for these men and inquiring if there is an established fund for the care of these vets that people can donate to. I hope they hear from people all over the world and perhaps this ugly episode can turn into something good for these men.
h/t Hot Air
– John (Average Gay Joe)
41 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So Britain is turning into San Francisco or Seattle.
Simply disgusting.
Comment by rightwingprof — November 24, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - November 24, 2007
Appalling. There are times when I wonder whether or not our culture deserves to survive.
Comment by Robert — November 24, 2007 @ 6:02 pm - November 24, 2007
The most fascinating thing about the human species is that, no matter how poorly we behave, we never–really–think that we’re acting like an asshole.
Comment by cowb0y — November 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm - November 24, 2007
What? They’re just “supporting the troops” more than you. You’re clearly not as nuanced as they are, John. It’s for the “common good”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 25, 2007 @ 4:06 am - November 25, 2007
#3: cowb0y – that’s a profundity… a bon mot. And oh, so true. Well said (wish I’d thought of that).
Comment by Robert — November 25, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - November 25, 2007
Cowboy you are probably right about this. It just sickened me to read this article though. I’m not a violent person and least of all towards women, but I gotta tell you I wanted to bitch-slap these women so hard…well I can’t think of anything appropriate to go with that.
Comment by John — November 25, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - November 25, 2007
#6
I’d hold ‘em for ya.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 25, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - November 25, 2007
I am a disable vet myself, and mind you Bitch slapping these low life women would be too kind and would not good enough for these below the bottom feeders of a species that happen to mistakenly passing off as members in the human race.
Comment by Elwood — November 25, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - November 25, 2007
The woman and (I am trying to be nice) and others like her SHOULD NOT! be allowed in a public place or any place that is public funded. Her kind remind me of when I was in the Army and came home from Vietnam back in the 70’s. Here in the US we were called baby killers another nasty things. People need to remember that only two people have ever died for them one was God and the other is the men and women who serve for there freedom…
James Gilbert
US Army 1971-1973
Oklahoma, USA
Comment by James — November 25, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - November 25, 2007
The endless compassion of the Left never fails to amaze me.
Comment by Tom — November 26, 2007 @ 12:08 am - November 26, 2007
Like maybe planning to protest a book-signing for a non-partisan book about a man’s bonding with a noble dog?.
There are some things … like jeering wounded vets, or protesting books about dogs … you just don’t see right-wingers do.
Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 11:27 am - November 26, 2007
I’m not a big fan of either Hannity or Levin, but this is just ridiculous. The Kossacks are going to protest a book about a dog?!? Hannity is annoying at times yet I find it ludicrous they’d consider him to be a fascist. Puhleeeeeze! These people have no concept of what the term means and use it far too freely (irony in that…).
Comment by John — November 26, 2007 @ 11:56 am - November 26, 2007
If Arianna Huffington wrote a book about knitting, you wouldn’t see right-wingers queuing up to protest.
Comment by V the K — November 26, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - November 26, 2007
10: I’m sorry, but where exactly do you glean the politics of these stupid women from this story? I read the article and what I could see is that they were real jerks for not wanting handicapped people to use the pool as they should have been able to do. What if turned out that they were actually supportive of the military in Iraq, but got the willies when they saw people who had been maimed injured in their service? Hell, the Republican leaders of our own government don’t want the coffins of the dead shown anywhere. There are all kinds of idiots like this out there in the world, both conservative and liberal alike.
Comment by Kevin — November 26, 2007 @ 8:02 pm - November 26, 2007
Kevin asks “I’m sorry, but where exactly do you glean the politics of these stupid women from this story?”
Kevin, the assumption here is that if anyone is discourteous to service personnel –or not pure enuff/true enuff on any issue– then they MUST BE a liberal. No other chance to engage in a little clean-sported pillory if the folks here didn’t asume or impute “they’re liberals” when convenient. The facts are oftentimes immaterial to them. I didn’t catch that these women were liberals or laborites… just assholes.
BTW John, the answer to your question about where to donate to help these vets out? The British Army Chief of Staff announced a 5m# drive to build a gym/pool for the rehabbing vets at Headley Court last month. You can read about it here:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414389-details/Army+chief+launches+%C2%A35m+appeal+to+fund+vital+therapy+centre+for+injured+troops/article.do
It’s called “Help 4 Heroes” and can be found here: http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/messagesofsupport.html
It’s even ok for liberals, Lefties or knock-off Brit wannabe SF’ites to contribute to the fund.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 26, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - November 26, 2007
MM: Not all Leftists hate the military but all military haters are Leftists.
Comment by Vince P — November 26, 2007 @ 9:05 pm - November 26, 2007
Which, Vince, accounts for the fact (that some would otherwise want to consider odd) that the Westboro types / Phelpses are mainly Democrats and wanted Saddam Hussein to stay in power.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 9:43 pm - November 26, 2007
ILC: Wow.. yes that makes sense.
I knew they were Dems, and I knew they were old time Al Gore supporters, I never considered/thought about WBC being leftist,, but yes, it is.
Comment by Vince P — November 26, 2007 @ 9:48 pm - November 26, 2007
Kevin:
Not remotely plausible. If they were pro-military and/or pro-Iraq mission, they would respond to seeing maimed servicemen with compassion and a desire to thank and help them. I know I do.
MM: It’s interesting, although sad, to continue observing your descent. I’ve long observed you attacking friends who agreed with you on most things, just not on the issue XYZ being discussed. Today, in this other thread, you attacked people who actually agreed with you on the issue being discussed (i.e., Trent Lott = bad). In #15, you casually attack the whole blog… in other words, your hosts who furnish your commenting space. Gryph, Kevin, Ian, etc. followed that dark path.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - November 26, 2007
Westboro/Phelps guys hate America, and so they have that in common with the left. That’s much more the common thread that binds the left these days than any particular set of political or economic philosophies.
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 8:22 am - November 27, 2007
Thanks for the link to Help For Heroes, MM.
Comment by John — November 27, 2007 @ 9:00 am - November 27, 2007
Kevin – and for that matter, MM as well – From the H4H web site:
That ain’t “getting the willies” over the sight of the handicapped, Kevin. And it ain’t the response of Churchillian or Thatcherite conservatives, MM.
Assuming it’s fair and accurate, it could be the response of someone with mental illness. Or, the response of a military-hating moonbat – and in account of the latter, I refer you to Vince at #16.
The concept that the soldiers did pay, with their service to Britain – AND their injuries – AND whatever official rehabilitation programs / rights they were brought in under – seems lost to that woman.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 11:58 am - November 27, 2007
As for this bit:
One of your standard Kevin falsehoods. “The facts are oftentimes immaterial”… indeed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - November 27, 2007
I wonder if they’ll show the coffins of all the gay people they’re exterminating. Or, is that more of a “mass graves” sort of thing.
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - November 27, 2007
Mass graves or cremation. (Coffins kill trees.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - November 27, 2007
Furthermore, when was the last time we saw one of the mass graves from the Saddam era? The liberals go positively orgasmic to show flag-draped coffins of individual US servicemen, but have done everything in their power to stop the showing of thousands of bones and bodies strewn across these massive pits that they babbled weren’t worth doing anything about.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - November 27, 2007
ILC, I know comprehension is a challenge for you, but the issue was why do so many of the armchair conservatives here want to condemn these women as lefties or liberals… proof withstanding. That’s what Kevin asked.
The women were wrong, surely. But why paint them as “liberals” like it’s a big red “A” on their foreheads? Or in your echo-chamber fashion, pile-on to others’ commentaries and imply the women must be vet-hating liberals.
The answer to Kevin’s honest query is that nothing in the press statements referenced indicate the women were liberals or lefties or anti-military. Their complaint was about being denied full use of the pool as a paying patron. Secondly, that the children present might be disturbed by seeing the injured likely-limbless vets splashing about in therapy.
Comprehension, ILC. It fails you often; that and not jumping to wild-assed purely speculative conclusions about the political leanings of these wrong-headed women. Oh wait, you didn’t do that… you just piled on in the echo chamber.
I think the Brit Army Chief of Staff has it right… build the vets their OWN pool. At the very least, they deserve some privacy while in therapy.
Or is this some of that crazy conservative lunancy that calls for military vets to use public pools to save the taxpayers… I can’t tell with your silliness. But I can tell comprehension escapes you, most surely.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 27, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - November 27, 2007
MM, beneath your usual mountain of dumb personal attacks on me, you haven’t said much. I’ll try to answer the little you have:
Who’s done that? You’re exaggerating as usual.
Yet in point of simple fact, it is almost always the case, as Vince put it in “#16, “Not all Leftists hate the military but all military haters are Leftists.” If that bothers you MM – as evidently it does – talk to the left-liberals about it, OK?
Already answered at #22. Reading, MM. It’s about reading.
Exactly. The vets were paying patrons (in various ways) too. Sharing, MM. It’s called sharing. And respect.
And they’re doing that. But why should they have to?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm - November 27, 2007
The answer to Kevin’s honest query is that nothing in the press statements referenced indicate the women were liberals or lefties or anti-military.
Not quite.
Please note what the women stated:
Charles Murrin, 79, a Navy veteran who saw the incident, said: “The woman said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays to come in the pool and they don’t.
Now, how would she know that a) they don’t “deserve” to be in there, or b) that they “hadn’t paid”, if she knew nothing about who they were?
It is inconceivable that this woman did not know these men were servicemembers; they were accompanied by a military instructor, for heaven’s sake. She knew what they were, and she walked right up to them and treated them like dirt.
I’d say that’s proof positive she’s anti-military. Furthermore, how many antimilitary conservatives do you know, Matt, versus Code Pink and the other front groups of the Democrat Party?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - November 27, 2007
NDT, don’t confuse the poor guy with facts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 6:35 pm - November 27, 2007
NDT, more to the point: At my gym, they close off part of the pool for various special programs (therapeutic or otherwise) all the time. It’s normal practice. I wouldn’t dream it was somehow inappropriate. I wouldn’t dream that I was somehow being denied full use of the pool or the gym for which I had paid.
The response of the wom(a/e)n indeed was so… out there.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - November 27, 2007
(Or so it appears. I will grant one thing, that thus far I only have Help For Heroes’ side of the story.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - November 27, 2007
ILC#32
You know sometimes an action is so wrong you really don’t need to hear both sides. Especially considering the media’s general anti-veteran bias. What good reason can you think for asking a crippled person in a rehab class to leave a pool?
Comment by Kevin — November 27, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - November 27, 2007
OK Kevin, you got me. You finally said something I can almost agree with!!!
But here’s my approach to truth. I do believe there is such a thing as the “objective truth”. I do believe inquiry can arrive at it. And I do believe that, once arrived at, it may function as a basis for appropriate moral condemnation. But… During the inquiry phase… There are always 2 or more sides to be reported, let’s say.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 7:53 pm - November 27, 2007
Let it also be noted that the Kevin to which ILC is responding is NOT the “flag-draped coffin, Republicans want to put all gays in concentration camps” Kevin.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2007 @ 6:56 pm - November 28, 2007
Oh, they’re different? Good catch, NDT. Thanks for letting me know!
I had intended no offense (this time) to either Kevin.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2007 @ 7:25 pm - November 28, 2007
[This comment has been deleted for violating the community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 11:04 am - November 29, 2007
Mea culpa, first. Let me try that once more?
NDT, you raised a secondary allegation that the women were probably anti-military. I agree completely that it looks that way. Maybe they were not only anti-military, but probably jerks as well? And boors.
But the point of Kevin’s comment and my point isn’t that… it was the way in which folks here jumped to the conclusion that these women must be liberals or lefties for protesting the use of the pool by those honorable, valiant and injured vets.
I’m guessing that had either you or I or John been there (or even some of the others who frequent this blog) we would have had a similar type of reaction to each other that would have confronted the women and helped them understand their error, certainly supported the vets and their use of the pool, defended the therapist and staffers there with the vets and worked to ensure they could conduct the therapy and maybe even interacted with the pool manager to make certain the vets were treated with respect, decency and got to use the pool… heck, I’ve have quickly taken away the womens’ argument by paying for the vets admission. Pronto; damn the exchange rate, too. We’d have probably each done constructive things to see that the vets got their therapy.
But it wouldn’t have meant that the women were liberals or lefties. Heck, they may not even have a political philosophy beyond pure, 1000% self-interest. Were they wrong? Oh yeah. Were they jerks? Certainly. Were they liberals? Can’t tell from these reports… but what is telling is how folks here jumped on the notion/smear/indictment that they must be liberals because of their untoward, uncivil conduct.
And if we had acted against that “outrage”, as John terms it, it wouldn’t have meant that conservatives somehow have a lock on being pro-military, patriotic or and the only ones in favor of God, faith and country… or, open lanes at public pools for injured vets.
This isn’t “show me a conservative who is anti-military”. I know lots of conservatives who have a strong dislike of the military and see military brass as bumblers, ill contenders and misfits… mostly because of their experience in VietNam. Two of the brightest, seminal conservatives I have known –Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley– have/had distain for the military. if you want to find conservatives who dislike the military, spend some time with the wannabe militia types… but then, they see the military as the enforcing arm of the IRS and govt revenuers… so, maybe you shouldn’t spend time with them.
There are liberals who are pro-military. JFK was a big liberal and pro-military. Sen Joe Liberman is liberal to most and yet he’s pro-military. Former US Navy Secy under RReagan, Sen Jim Webb is a progressive/moderate and he’s pro-military. And I hate to admit it, but Michigan’s own Carl Levin –who is miles away from my politics– is pro-military. In fact, out of all the issues he touches on, it’s the only impluse we share. Otherwise, I have little use for his harsh partisanship.
Now, granted, if the sneering women turn out to be the Brit equivalent of Code Pinkers, it wouldn’t surprise me. Frankly, from the reports I’ve read, they were just incredibly selfish, self-centered twits. Just trying to be fair and balanced.
(Hope that one clears the censors; sorry; mea culpa)
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - November 29, 2007
I can only speak for myself here. Again:
- I made an inference that the women had to be anti-military on some level. NDT has since proven that inference airtight. I stand by it.
- I further supported Vince’s inference that, while NOT all lefties are military-haters, true military-haters are almost invariably lefties.
- I further noted it would be desirable to hear the women’s side of the story – Even if their case ultimately is weak.
If that’s “jumping to conclusions” – Hey, so be it. But of course it isn’t.
I’m perfectly happy to grant that these women could be, shall we say, political ***moderates*** rather than leftists. But Churchillian or Thatcherite conservatives? Ha, ha, ha.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - November 29, 2007
Right, no one said or tried to claim that they were conservatives, ILC. Nice dodge but it won’t miss the bullet.
The point was how commenters here jumped to the conclusion –in the absence of any reasonable proof– that the women were lefties or liberals or worse.
It’s sad to have to note how far afield some here go in order to defend and twist words in order to escape a simple fact: they jumped to conclusions that the women were liberals or lefties. And when called on the fact, try to twist and spin to avoid accountability.
It’s so sad. The facts are sometimes immaterial to the pleasure they derive from some good natured, boys-club-in-the-lockeroom sporting pillory of the fairer sex.
ILC, when you find a reliable source that supports the assumption these women were liberal lefties in a one piece, let me know. Like I said, I wouldn’t doubt they are but the more interesting aspect is how quick some here are to condemn, smear or indict those who don’t agree with the RIGHT position as liberals, lefties or Democrats.
I think it says far more about the level of intolerance here than what might have been in the hearts of those women.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - November 29, 2007
All previously answered.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 10:44 pm - November 29, 2007