Picture from Mail
Karl Winn of Taunton, 60, is the boss of a net design company named Webeurope and he employs 16 people. He was contacted by Forces Recruitment Services who asked if he would consider taking on ex-soldiers. His response was:
Personally, I'd rather recruit ex-drug dealers, convicts and even child molesters rather than consider anybody who has been in the pay of the British Government.'
'Anybody who has been in the pay of such a military force, and by their silence and complicity has condoned such illegal and immoral actions while accepting a monthly bloodstained pay-packet , certainly won't be considered for employment by us.'
'The reality for the families of their victims is that there will never be any justice, and there never will be any closure, for the loss of a son, a husband, a child, or a family member who has fallen victim to British Military personnel who are going beyond 'just doing their job'.
'Please remove us from your email list. Regards, Karl.'
When another newspaper contacted him he initially said a disgruntled ex-worker had hacked into his emails and the above email wasn't written by him but he later admitted he was the author.
He admitted they may have been 'a bit over the top' but then said: 'I don't regret saying it at all.'
'Even if it costs me money I'll still stand up for what I believe in,' he said.
The very people who defend his right to stand up for what he believes in are the people he refers to as lower in our social structure than ex-drug dealers, convicts and child molesters.
FRS managing director Graham Brown said he was 'staggered' by Mr Winn's attitude and asked him, by email, if the Royal Marine detachment based in Taunton would share his belief.
I'm not surprised Mr Winn's staff were later seen removing corporate signs from outside his office. They can't be feeling too good knowing the kind of individual their boss is prepared to employ rather than ex-military personnel.
If I worked for the man I'd be looking for another job immediately. In fact now that this has hit the MSM I should think there are a few of Mr Winn's clients who will be thinking long and hard about giving their business to such a despicable character.
You can read more here and from an Australian newspaper. Webeurope has issued a press release here. Tractor Stats has posted a brief comment which you can read here.
Posts
22 comments:
Winn=loser.
Mr. Winn's comments are harsh but perhaps they deserve more than a knee-jerk reaction.
Someone in my family committed suicide from his guilt over the acts he had perpetrated against innocent civilians while in the US Army. Are you so sure that the UK military is always so innocent? You might do a little checking and disabuse yourself. While I don't agree with assuming all are guilty, it is a fact that horrendous acts have been carried out in OUR (mutual) recent wars.
Consider this news release on the topic:
12th March 2010 - Statement by Mark Thompson Director of Relatives for Justice on British state violence in Ireland and of the support received by Webeurope in terms of addressing the legacy of hurt and pain.
'Throughout the conflict in Ireland the British army and the RUC acted with impunity regarding its actions. In particular the provision of impunity surrounded virtually all of the 367 direct killings by the State – most of these perpetrated by the British army. These were predominantly, yet not exclusively, perpetrated against the nationalist/republican and Catholic community. The vast majority of those targeted and killed were uninvolved civilians – men, women and children.
'Of those non-State combatants killed many were killed in preplanned premeditated circumstances in which safe and effective arrests were possible yet political and military decisions were taken to act outside of the rule of law and to kill people rather than to act and adhere to international and domestic legal requirements.
'Added to this was the systemic policy of misinformation concerning events surrounding killings by the State and the practice of character assassination as the propaganda machine of the establishment sought to both justify killings and highlight the threats and dangers under which the British army and RUC operated. ...
'In documents discovered under the 30-year rule in London an insight into the political and military thinking of the early 1970’s clearly establishes the rationale of British military tactics in which senior military figures cite the ‘shock and stun’ effects that they seek to deploy as part of the policy around internment and Operation Motorman. ...
'These incidents have been globally documented and are a matter of fact. The British government were effectively sanctioning the murders of its own citizens in the North of Ireland during the conflict - citizens that they had both a moral and legal duty to protect. The British army were at the core of implementing this policy.
'Relatives for Justice has had tremendous support from people in Britain over the years and that support came in many forms, from former serving members of the British army, British politicians, solidarity groups, and ordinary members of the British public.
'Webeurope are an example of the type of practical support that has been both show and demonstrated in their charitable commitment to our organisation. They have heard at first hand the true extent of the role of the British army, the trauma, hurt and anguish caused - importantly they have acted to heal, support and address in their own way the awful legacy left behind as a direct consequence of British state violence in our country.
'For that we are greatly indebted to them and in particular Karl Winn whose commitment to non-violence means, human rights, social justice, compassion and humanity are an example to us all.'
I don't claim to know the rights and wrongs of NI. Both sides seem to have perpetrated a lot of wrongs in that situation. But are you necessarily PROUD of what the UK has done there? In Iraq? In Afghanistan?
There are often two sides to things.
Perhaps Mr. Winn's stand is a unduly harsh, but if it were an opinion you AGREED with, I suspect you would be amongst the first to defend his right to hire who he chooses.
Looks like he'll be burnt out before Easter!
I predict a riot!
CD
I'd agree that he should be free to choose who he employs, and I say that as a smoker, which means many companies are legally entitled to regard me as filth and ignore any other aspect of any application I might make to them. They are also free to choose who they employ. Apart from the imposed quotas, of course.
However, there was no need for such a tirade in response to a simple request. What should have happened was -
"We are an agency placing ex-soldiers in jobs. Would you be interested in being on our books?"
"No thank you."
End of matter.
Instead he rants on about how he'd rather employ criminals and perverts and how all soldiers - all - are guilty by association for the acts carried out by some, even if they were not at all involved and were never even deployed to the areas in question.
That is, I think, corporate suicide. His employees will be polishing up their CV's even now, and his clients and suppliers will be reconsidering their contracts.
Choosing who you can employ - fine with me. All those silly quotas on so-many ethnics, so-many gays, so-many disabled etc should be abolished. If an employer wants to restrict his choice of candidate to a narrow group, then let him lose the talent in the wider group to his competitors.
If someone doesn't want to employ me because I smoke, that's okay with me. If they just say 'No' and give that as a reason, I'll move on to the next on the list.
But there's really no need to be abusive about it.
It's a shame he wont hire them, because all the ex-squaddies I know are hard working, reliable, loyal, driven and posess a sense of humour.
It's easy to knock us chaps and chapettes who traded lounging around at Uni to carry a rifle - most of us are well mannered enough to chuckle about it.
People will always wring their hands and wail about guilt, but I know this. The lads I stood next to on the front line in a hot and sandy place were quite simply the finest young men I have yet met in my 39 years on this rock.
Mr Winn is welcome to his opinion. I know a few young lads who died so he could express it. I'll not lose any sleep over his email.
Another of the Righteous Conan. He'd see his family blown up and then say it was all in the name of Righteousness.
This was the, perhaps predictable, result of his generation of the Right-On, who transmogrified into The Righteous, being so self-assured of their sanctified anti-militarism, anti-Americanism, Ban The Bomb mindset and being so concerned with out-doing each other in that Right-Onness that they lose control of what they are saying.
In effect Karl Winn has had his Gerald Ratner moment and I hope it likewise destroys his company.
I spotted this too, and ended up just posting a copy of the letter.
We're all told to keep our thoughts inside our heads these days, in case we offend somebody or other, and he should have done the same, especially as an employer.
Harman's law should have teeth in cases like this, but they won't, they never seem to help decent people.
Jeanne, our military are voluntary. I'm not stating an individual in the UK military is innocent of killing someone without just cause because I don't have the knowledge to say that.
What I do know is that those who join the UK military are not gun-ho, as can be said for the US military from my experience. Thankfully the US have learned from their gun-ho tactics in Iraq but that's another story.
Of course there are other sides to things, not just two.
Jeanne, without our volunteer military Mr Winn would not have the freedom to say what he said. I defend the freedom for all of us to say what we think.
Our armed troops provide that freedom, at a cost that some may feel is too much, but it is there. There are any other countries in which the right to freedom of speech is denied and if that law is broken the punishment is death.
CD I understand your reasons for a riot. I'll be there. :)
How right you are Leg-Iron. He's shown his colours regarding his freedom to speak because it's only because we have an impartial military he's able to do that.
Instead he used his response to make his feeble protests.
Would he have done that in many other countries? I think not.
Right enough Rain, I won't lose any sleep about this man. He's put his colours on his mast and fair enough.
I do hope he never requires military help in his lifetime.
Maybe this gentleman would like to ask our PM to explain exactly why the troops are in places that these things can happen, perhaps also ask Mr President.
D
I'm sorry, Subrosa, but I don't by the, "We Brits are so morally superior our troops would never do something like that--only the mangy Americans" argument.
You might want to ask the Kenyan whether they'd buy that argument.
I don't agree with punishing all former troops either.
Now there's a thought Apogee. Of course he wouldn't have the courage.
Morning Jeanne. I don't think I said anything like ' we Brits are morally superior etc' - in fact quite the contrary.
I did say I don't have the knowledge to make that claim but it is well known that the American style in Iraq was different to the British style. You just have to see the stats for 'friendly fire'.
Much of the computer world owes its origins to the military, I wonder how Karl justifies his business with this in mind. No doubt he is also happy to use the services of military trained nurses, doctors, firemen, policemen and may others. I would say not a moment passes in his day where he is not using something with a debt to the military.
Actually Lorenzo that is a good point.
While I respect those who stand up for their beliefs, I think this man is a self-publicist and has little conviction.
He knew exactly what he was doing writing his email, he just didn't have the sense to realise his correspondent would call his bluff.
There are many of us that hold our feckless politicians more culpably guilty than our troops for the inevitable horrors of war. I wonder if this firm also has a reluctance to employ or produce work for politicians and their civil servants or indeed, all of us who pay tax (willingly or otherwise) to fund our military. Where does this moral giant draw the line - or is he actually a hypocrit?
We should give some consideration to this man's argument.
Whether civilians or soldiers they're individuals with all the differing traits generic to our species. The exception being the soldier is trained and moulded into a more obeying role.
By itself there's nothing wrong in that, it can and is used to restrain the negative excesses and encourage the discipline of control.
Problem is the 'Wars' they're being asked to fight are not wars of aggression or defence over lands or freedoms, they're selective, practically indefinable political wars to either maintain or extend power bases.
Irish freedom, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan - and that's naming only a few - have all proved the gun and the lash don't work, and eventually the conference table and negotiation is used to mash up a face saving solution. Yet we still have this pantomime of force in order to value and audit the amount of chips that will eventually be brought to the political table.
The effect of this political fiasco of posturing is we put our troops into situations where they have to act with one hand tied behind their back, the opposite leg manacled and a list of do's and dont's constantly whining in one ear. In effect they're being asked by the politician to do exactly what these same politicians have failed to succeed in. Namely to win hearts and minds with the but, bayonet and bullet; when that brutalizes soldiers as executioners and those who order them into that situation as serial killers.
Most ex servicemen I know who have done 'anything' during the course of their career are very circumspect in their use of it.
I suspect Mr Winn should be equally circumspect in his attitude to any job applications. Blame where blame's due.
There are indeed Clarinda. I'll bet if they were offered a government contract they'd bite Westminster's hand off.
A hypocrit of course.
I understand the outline of his argument RA but I don't accept his comparisons between the military and the other folk he would employ.
Post a Comment