UKC

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/25/queens-guard-pushes-tourist-way-goes-rope-77...

Over the years there have been several instances similar to this. The reason that the guards at Buckingham Palace are now stationed behind the railings stems from one such incident in 1959

People don't seem to understand that the Queen's Guard are not there as a tourist attraction. They are operational military personnel performing a duty.

I can imagine the result of similar incidents in Moscow(Lenin's Tomb), Washington, Paris or other numerous places world wide.

Of course they are there as a tourist attraction, that's why they have red coats and silly hats and stand completely still or march up and down in a straight line not looking side to side.    They are there to get their picture taken by tourists.   The actual guarding is presumably getting done by people watching  CCTV and far less visible cops or soldiers.

That soldier pushed the woman far too hard, he was lucky she didn't fall flat on her face and hurt herself.    A bit of stamping and yelling or even theatrically waving your gun when somebody takes the p*ss is one thing and adds a little atmosphere but she's a harmless tourist and could easily have been injured.

Agreed, military personnel should not be assaulting tourists. Wherever we use the military as tourist attractions we should have civilian police nearby to have a word or make arrests.

Presumably there are protocols to follow depending on the seriousness of the infractionthreat, I'd be staggered if pushing someone with out an explanation is one of the approved actions, especially as he didn't move her to the other side of the rope .  

One handed shove which barely had any impact.  The Guardsman barely broke stride.  The tourist, by the account given, deliberately climbed over the rope and stood right in the way of the guard.

Sounds like an attempt to gain a bit of internet notoriety to me.  Seems to have worked.

We are in serious snowflake territory here if you think this is some kind of horrendous act by the guardsman.

But why did she cross the rope in the first place? As I understand it he was carrying out his duties and on finding somebody obstructing him reacted accordingly, including a verbal warning. I doubt that he is expected to deviate from his "path" or to say "terribly sorry madam but would you mind very much getting out of my way".

These are operational soldiers who have served in theatres of war and this is yet another of their duties. I doubt that the Evzones in Athens or the guards at Lenin's tomb et al are any different.

How do I know? It looked like she was losing for a photo?

Why not a policeman would, or someone stacking shelves in Tesco 

What exactly is that duty, if it is to protect what's on the other side of the rope he could do that without the push. If he thought there was a threat he should have done something about to like arrest (or equivalent) or neutralising the threat but he didn't, he pushed her and carried on .

Should he have used that stabby, knifey thing on the end of his gun?

Come on. It's a matter of tradition. Why do the Scottish regiments still wear kilts and Tam o Shanters? The British Army is nothing without it's history and it's regimental structure. It's what has held the whole armed forces together for the past 350 years. Long before tourists appeared on the scene. 

If this had happened in Arlington at the tomb of the unknown soldier for example, the supposed 'victim' would have got a far more severe response. 

That would be more understandable. If she poses a serious threat, kill her. If she poses less of a threat, arrest her. If  she poses no threat but was a nuisance, educate her, don't summarily dole out some arbitary physical punishment of your choosing 

Yes and similarly 350 years ago people wore knickerbockers and frock coats but the only ones doing that these days are people playing a role for tourists. Likewise these soldiers don't wear this outfit when guarding the barracks in an non-tourist area no matter their history.

Yes they would, they'd probably be arrested and dealt with following a proper protocol

Do soldiers have any powers of arrest?

Don't be ridiculous. It wasn't that hard a push, she didn't fall over and she wasn't hurt. The guardsman didn't even break step. Silly woman, what the hell did she imagine the rope was there for?

Apparently if their warnings are ignored they can detain the person, presumably until the police arrive so it will be a long detention! The sentry boxes also are equipped with  buttons for summoning assistance.

It was pretty lame yeah, but you'd have thought they'd have been told not to  touch people, just shout. 

It's the 'entitled generation' receiving a spot of education.  The Guardsman is there to do a specific job, albeit with its roots in history, and no-one should put self-promotion or self-aggrandisement above that.  She showed absolutely no courtesy in her conduct towards him; by what reasoning should anyone think he should walk around her?  Nevertheless, given that he had a rifle and fixed bayonet, not using either was considerate on his part.

https://changing-guard.com/changing-the-guard-buckingham-palace.html#ceremo...

It does seem this soldier didn't follow procedure, should have been stamping his feet and shouting..... put on a show. Probably had is knuckles rapped but they'd have kept that quiet..... don't want to upset the royalist snowflakes

Well put. Showing disrespect to a Queen's Guard whilst performing his/her ceremonial duty is, by implication, showing disrespect to the Queen.

Not a matter of punishment. She was impeding him in tbe perfomance of his duties. She "crossed the line(rope)" and he sbouted a verbal warni g which she ignored. He acted accordingly and presumably as per what he is expected to do by his seniors.

I'm sure the sound of his size nine hobnails as he marched made up for him not stamping

"Woman’s quest to grow the world’s largest bum with 15 jars of Nutella a month"

and 

"Another serial 'poo jogger' has been caught leaving gifts in Australia"

Seems to have got you standing to attention.

I quite agree, the same as police officers, health inspectors, lolly pop wo/men, teachers, shelf stackers, waiting staff etc. Would you be happy for them to shove your wife or daughter if they got in their way, even if they were in the wrong by dint of standing where they shouldn't? You might say he was doing more important work than those but he didn't shove her in order to perform the 'guarding' part of his duties but in order to perform the other, less important task, of marching in a straight line while dressed to entertain tourists.

I don't know if the same applies now, but back in the 1980s a friend of mine was in the Irish Guards, and as I understood it from him it was perfectly acceptable for a guardsman to use reasonable physical force to restrain or remove someone who was obstructing them. As to what constituted "reasonable force" was a matter for a guardsman's own judgement, but in most cases, and certainly in a case like this the Army would have backed their action.

He said a common problem they used to face was the joker who would stand up close in front of them invading their space, and pulling faces etc to try and make the the guard laugh. A generally accepted way of dealing with such behaviour was to suddenly and without warning come to an exaggerated attention kicking them in the shin as they brought their right leg up.

Guard duty also had a pleasant side when attractive girls came up close beside them to have their photos taken. The challenge there was to try and get a date for later without any onlookers noticing their lips moving.

Are youyfor real? Have I accidentally logged on to the Daily Mail comments section? So its ok to shove someone showing disrespect to the Queen, however obliquely? In that case, the Queen is noxious tw*t descended from inbreds. I'll PM you my address so you can mete out my punishment.

I'd be astonished if this is what he was expected to do by his seniors in the same way as I'd be astonished if this is what is expected of stewards at Alton Towers. Solidiers are public servants, this is peace time, we're not at war with tourists yet despite what all you with a hard on for the military and royalty seem to think.

You are easily astonished.

I'm astonished you think so

Blimey, whataboutery at its finest.  Lets take an example of each however we need to precede each example with the knowledge that a warning was given in the first instance and that the person in question was impeding this soldier's duties, however mundane or pointless you think they are.  She was lucky to have come off so lightly.

-Teachers.  If a shove to an adult helped protect a child (a major element of their role) then I would approve.  I have seen teachers use force to other children when the safety of their classmates was at stake.

-Police officers.  I would fully expect a police officer to shove someone (or detain/arrest them) who was getting in the way of them guarding a specific event, crime scene or other specific duty.

-Health Inspectors.  Poor example but you could argue that if they were impeded in carrying out their duties then they would be able to get a warrant to search premises and that any such further restrictions would result in force being used.

-Shelf Stackers. Probably a bad example but if a shelf stacker was helping a colleague who was on a high platform and their safety was at risk due to stupid behaviour then I would fully expect force to be used to ensure that people didnt get in the way. 

-Waiting staff. Not sure of this one.

-Lolly pop staff.  If a person was impeding them from their duties of protecting children and parents at busy crossings by selfish or reckless activity then I would fully endorse a firm shove if it protected the safety of the kids.  I would also go as far as to endorse a thorough slapping by the lolly pop.

What is closer to astonishing is your bizarre and troll-like overreaction to an utterly innocuous incident with zero consequence other than a bit of hurt pride for a tourist who didn’t want to play be the rules.

Dear oh dear! You've gone an thrown your toys out of the pram again! When you grow up you will learn that the Queen is for the time being, our Head of State whether you like it or not. As has already been pointed out by others, it's poor form to show disrespect to a country's Head of State be it a Queen, King, President, Dictator or whatever. Yes it's all symbolic, but you are obviously far too too dim or immature to understand that. 

Ive just looked at the clip again and actually, I'm more concerned at the clickbait at the side.  One is a woman's quest to create the world's largest arse by eating 15 jars of Nutella per day and another of a jogger who keeps shitting on the streets Down Under.

Its what the t'interweb was created for.  Tim Berners Lee would be most proud.

She'll have a job to do better than the arses on UKC

I'm mindful to agree with you, if there is a an immediate risk of injury or in order to prevent a crime being committed it might be acceptable, not the case here. Also, it wouldn't be the first course of action in any of the above cases would it, shouted warning then a shove? I've seen the police being very patient with some right tw*ts.  (I can't hear a warning and it's not mentioned in the text but others are saying she was warned) 

Could be a snowflake (not a phrase I have often used at all, to be honest), could be a troll.

Either way it's a non-story.

The rope is there to demarcate the area he is guarding; he will be expected to do this in accordance with procedures / instructions. He needs to clear the area, so if she gets a relatively harsh shove in the back, it shows the guarding is taken seriously. Soldiers are not public servants, they fight wars / guard royalty. His job at that time was to guard whatever part of royalty / royal estate he was ordered to. We are not at war with tourists, but on a reasonably high alert for terrorists, which is what he is there to protect the queen from.

If you really want to see what lengths he is prepared to go to, go do the same as this woman, but when he shoves you out of the way, shove him back, or even better, run towards the nearest castle gate. Do let us know how things progress........

Is it just an over reaction to point out that i don't think this is something that the army on ceremonial duty should be doing?  That it wasn't necessary at all for him to perform his duties? You might say that the over reaction comes from the military fetishists on the site who are trying to pretend that this guard was protecting the Queen from ISIL or in sole charge of the nuclear football rather than the UKs equivalent of someone payed to walk around Disney World dressed as Mickey Mouse

It's hot out.  Go and have a rest under the shade of your bridge.  The goats aint coming because the grass is all parched.

People who agree with your point of view seem to think it is... you best get em told! Doesn't seem to work like that though does it

Yep, me pointing out it was unnecessary is throwing my toys  out of the pram but this is definitely not......

These people are morons, the same ones who get mown down on level crossings or hit crossing the road.   We can only hope she does not have children.

cheers

Toby

I'm not a great royalist or particularly enamoured of ceremony, but purposefully obstructing an on-duty member of the armed forces is up there with swearing one more time at a policeman despite being repeatedly warned as a contender for the "No shit, did they really?" award for Least Surprising Outcome.

This is obvious nonsense, it that were the case he would be dressed differently, stood still looking around rather than walking up and down looking straight ahead with a cumbersome hat obstructing his vision.

You say that and yet here you are getting all upset because I didn't side with these brave soldiers. 

As it happens I am off outside so I'll have to leave you all to your copies of Guns and Ammo or whatever it is you guys read.

Lat word on this thread and a proper comment.

I'm not going to show respect to an hereditary monarch.

I'm not going to show respect to a man who does crude impressions of a journalist with arthrogryposis.

If that's upsets people in the relevant countries I can live with that, I probably wouldn't get on with them anyway.

Brilliant, this has all the hallmarks of the month's funniest non-threadworthy thread.

Im going to do some very overdue gardening in the sunshine with a few delightfully chilled cans of Punk IPA and I verily hope that there are more funnies when I get back online later to entertain me later whilst in a 5% plus induced fuzz.

Not in a democracy.  It's your right as a citizen to call the head of state a knob if that's what you think.  Or are we all supposed to be polite about Trump or Kim Jong Un or Assad or Putin just because they are head of state?

If you look at the video the guard came from behind this woman and pushed her hard enough she stumbled quite a distance before restoring her balance.  She could easily have fallen flat on her face and ended up with cuts/bruises.   It wasn't necessary, he could easily have walked round her - in fact he did after she recovered her balance, still on the wrong side of the rope.   There's CCTV all over the place at Buckingham Palace, assuming it is absolutely imperative that this guy doesn't break step, how long would it take for another cop or soldier to get there and safely move her to the other side of the rope with a warning she'd get arrested if she crossed it again.

This is just about putting on a show for tourists.  There's no security implication at all for someone being on one side of that rope or the other.    The only thing it affects is whether the performer can walk in an absolutely straight line.

We'll have to disagree, but if you think that was a hard push, don't ever get in my way when I'm using my zimmer.........

Waste of time Haiku

Tourist falls over

Was she pushed by a soldier

I am off climbing.

I didn't realise Disney World regularly sent Mickey Mouse on operation to Afghanistan and other sandy hellholes or expect that Mickey Mouse may have to give his life in the normal course of his job.

Must be a shit job, especially in that costume.

Don't quite know why I'm bothering with this as you are so very obviously totally f*cking clueless on this matter and also obviously closed to rational discussion.

Firstly we're talking about soldiers here, not sodding theme park attendants and not living tourist attractions. They are expected to be aggressive, it's what they are trained for, it's part of the job description. They are absolutely not required to take shit from some tourist looking for 5 minutes of fame on youtube. From a practical point of view they are marching up and down on one of the world's biggest public stages to showcase the very fact that the British army is disciplined, aggressive and unwilling to take shit. Deterrence is a very real part of National defence.

As to the silly uniforms and traditions that you are so disdainful of, their purpose is to foster a sense of tribalism and an appreciation of regimental history as well as a connection with all those thousands of men who have died wearing those uniforms. It's an important part of instilling the sort ethos that enables a shit scared 18 year old to charge an enemy position, not just because he'd be letting down his mates if he didn't but because he'd also be letting down his Regiment and all those who'd gone before him.

This may all seem completely nonsensical to you but wars are nonsensical and it certainly seems nonsensical to defend a public who increasingly seem to have little thought or understanding of of what soldiering entails

I dunno, that might be a bit of a stretch. By extending that reasoning I'm disrespecting the Queen every time I use a £50 note to snort my coke, but that's certainly not what I'm intending

They are supposed to be professionals.   That means being aggressive when it is appropriate and not being aggressive when it is inappropriate.    When those crazy muslim terrorists attacked the off duty soldier outside an army barracks in London I would have had absolutely no problem with soldiers on guard duty at the barracks shooting them dead - but it wasn't allowed, they had to wait for the police.   

When it comes to a female tourist stepping over a rope then I don't think she needs to be physically attacked and I don't think it's going to cause a crisis for UK national security if the guardsman walks round her and waits for the police to give her a telling off.  

It didn't take much of a shove to kill a homeless man a few years back at street protests after he landed flat on his face.

Arguably then the police had more grounds for the shove than perhaps the guardsmen did.  Under most circumstances it is considered assault.

Always worries me a bit when behaviour is excused "because he's a soldier/hero/afghanistan".

Buckingham palace having ropes and people in uniform shouldn't mean the rules of peacetime society go out the window.

Not overly fussed by the shove myself. But some people seem willing to go to extraordinary lengths to defend something his own superiors might not be so on-board with.

Maybe the answer to this sort if thing happening is for people like the English Tourist Board and similar organisations is to get a message across that the Queens Guard have a duty to perform and that there are certain parts that are "off limits" and that the public must remain behind the cordon. Failure to observe the cordon will be an impediment to the guards performing their duties and may result in action by the guard(s). The warning could be reiterated with notices in the vicinity.

No, sorry but this is getting silly. We can't wrap tourists in cotton wool, they need to use a bit of intelligence and common sense, and not go beyond cordons or get in the way of ceremonial. It's not that difficult to understand.

If you visited Moscow would you get in the way of the goose stepping guard of honour at Lenin's tomb? Of course you wouldn't.

For what might be the first time ever on these forums I agree with you. I can't help but think that the bulk of the people defending the guardsman are getting hard-ons over the show of strength through sanctioned violence rather than any real sympathy for the security or respect of the Queen. This sort of thing is 'in' at the moment.

As shoves go it was no big deal really and she was an idiot but since when do harmless idiots deserve anything more than a civilised word in the ear. I thought the guardsman looked a fool, a shout and if necessary a manhandle over the rope would have been better. 

Slight push from the guardsmen, over exaggerated reaction from stupid women on the wrong side of the cordon ,no interest from the other tourist present.

A none story really.

Or, there are a lot of people who wish these idiots did just get a shove or good shouting at and telling off rather than them ruining things for the majority of people who can enjoy things without being cretins.  As long as people make excuses for these idiots we will have barriers, closed events, lack of access and we will lose some of the best things in life.

cheers

toby

One of the more judgemental pieces of pap I’ve read recently.

Also, in what world is giving someone a gentle shove a “show of strength”?  It looked to me like a show of measured restraint.  If he’d used any strength she’d have gone over on her face.  

Nail, meet hammer. Spot on.

Sure, but isn't the fact that in the UK tourists don't generally get beaten up by officials a good thing?  Also, maybe one of the reasons why far more people go to London on their holidays than go to Moscow.

He was a complete tw*t. 

This thread has been more like reading the comments on a Daily Mail piece 

just as people in smooth soled shoes shouldn't venture past the barriers preventing them getting out on to glaciers or falling down Alpine rockfaces. 

Thats the army motto isnt it.... 

Sorry but who got  beaten up? As usual faux outrage and and excessive exaggeration are the order of the day. Some idiots think they can do what they want, without consequences. Well guess what, they can't though in this case the consequences are not worthy of mention unless you are a ultra attention seeking snowflake looking for sympathy and probably compensation for the indignity you suffered.  

Agreed. Total non-event. If that clip was on match of the day, the pundits would be saying how the attacker drew the foul. Fortunately there was no ref, so no red card.

Look at this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&

Compare the amount of force that cop used to push a newspaper vendor in a much more intense situation to the amount of force this soldier used on a harmless tourist.   It was a stupid move by the soldier and it was just luck she stayed on her feet. 

Apparently not getting a boner at the sight of uniformed men shoving people around makes us snowflakes. Fine with me, we did ok at Stalingrad.

London is not Moscow. If you think Russia is a reasonable country with satisfactory human rights, why don’t you move there? I’m sure you would have a lovely time as a journalist.

Now I’m wishing this had happened a year earlier. Putin would have seen it, quivered in his boots and there would be no Novichok flying around in Salisbury.

Just read this comment of yours. Are you for real dude?

I’m glad the rest of the world is not as mature as you, otherwise no royalty or dictator would ever be overthrown - people would be so busy paying their respects.

As was she. In spades.

Is all as it seems?

From Huff Post:

The source said the rope that was in place was not a “permanent fixture” and was laid out by the soldier’s superior after he had complained that the woman in the video had made several attempts to touch him.

It is understood the woman had earlier tried to “grab” the soldier’s arm, rifle and bearskin hat and sit in his sentry box, and had been asked to stop.

If he had butt stroked her (serving or ex soldiers will know what that means) then she would have had cause for complaint.  He didn't, he shoved her, without using excessive force. There really is no story here. She was out of order, he dealt with it, move on to the next snowflake sob story.

As a teacher I can confirm we are permitted to use reasonable force in various situations to maintain discipline.  Shoving wouldn’t be at all usual, (far more usual might be a gentle hand on the arm as a reminder, or on several occasions I have restrained fighting children with arms around the shoulders and pulling them away) but I have on one occasion only in many years actually shoved children, when a fight broke out on a crowded staircase which was extremely dangerous as there was a high likelihood of quite a number of children falling down the stairs, I shoved some of the children watching back into the corridor and away from the stairs.  

Many teachers are reluctant to touch children for fear of a backlash, but in my opinion I would they are often relieved when adults step in, and I’ve never had an issue.  

Back to the OP. Silly woman shouldn’t have crossed the line.  

10/10 to the guardsman. Trolled UKC like a champ!

Source is here: https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/queens-guard-video_uk_5b585303e4b0de86...

I don't really care either way, but my initial thoughts are "How did Huffington Post find a source?" and "that video seems to be deliberately putting the event in the worst possible context".

Reading through this thread made me think that people would jump to conclusions without knowing the full picture. 

It sounds like a case of he did what he is paid to do and she got the video she wanted to sell to the newspapers. No complaints. 

It was totally unnecessary for him to shove her.   He could have stopped walking up and down for a couple of minutes while a security person or cop who wasn't carrying an assault rifle and could use both hands escorted her off the premises.    If she had already 'provoked him and he'd already got his boss out to put in the rope and they thought it could be a setup for a video then it is even stupider to deal with it this way. 

I've read the same - that she repeatedly kept touching and grabbing him. 

Actions have consequences.  

Look at it this way, if that had been a teenage boy doing that and the soldier had kicked him hard up the arse no one would be saying anything.  Moreso after reading that the person had tried to bother the guard a few times and the rope had been put up to stop her.

In fact, I imagine that would be pretty much the reaction of most parents if their offspring was acting in such a way.  Its called respect.  Learn some

That sounds like bullshit. She'd tried to grab his rifle and the numerous police around Windsor didn't at least escort her off the the site? 

Why does it sound like bullshit?  Tourists try all sorts.  Just ask any Guardsman down on Whitehall.

If a soldier kicked a kid hard and there was a video the parents would go to the police.  The soldier would be charged with assault and the kid would get compensation.   If this woman had fallen over and got injured that soldier would have been prosecuted just like the cop that pushed over Ian Tomlinson.

It's called democracy, human rights and the rule of law.  People in uniform don't get to carry out random acts of violence on citizens to teach them 'respect'.     Sometimes I think England is losing its way with all this Brexiting bullsh*t.

If she tried to grab his rifle then he'd have been completely within his rights to deck her.  Trying to grab a rifle is more than enough justification for use of force.   Standing passively in front of someone with your back turned isn't.

It is pretty obvious that if anybody tried to grab an SA80, then police would deal with them.  It's beyond ridiculous to believe all that would happen is someone would put a rope in front of the guard.

Wanna buy some snake oil? Special UK Brexit edition, cures all ills but doesn't work on smelly foreigners!

she could have been up to anything - such a distraction allowing a Lee Rigby style attack on someone on ceremonial duty would be a big internet win.  Quite right not to compromise for someone whose final intent is unknown and who has gone beyond the permitted limits.  Perhaps this might not have happened in the 70s but since then there have been some terrible attacks like Hyde Park and Lee Rigby so things are different.

"Sometimes I think England is losing its way with all this Brexiting bullsh*t."

Lets hope he wasn't a Scots guard eh!

If he was a Scots Guard in a kilt she'd have got a shock.  They're trained for crowd control: I saw it on Carry on up the Kyhber.

This is funny.  

youtube.com/watch?v=XSoJqdPi4Iw&

I'm neutral about the Queen, but some might question in a well argued way why she should be respected?

It could be that they only thought it was a set up in hindsight?

I've been on holiday to Moscow, but have never holidayed in London.

I would holiday in Moscow again.

Wow, you lot get really worked up about this sort of thing. Before branding me irrational though maybe you should read back at what I've actually said?

I started by stating I thought pushing a tourist out of the way was unlikely to be the approved way of dealing with a tourist getting in the way. I thin got sucked in by people claiming false equivalence between ceremonial duties at Windsor Palace and a war zone. I never sought to condemn the the solider as I can empathise with the impulse to push someone in this situation in the same way as I often have the impulse to tell people at work to f*ck off. The thing is we moderate our behaviour according to the circumstances.

They are soldiers and for this particular one his job, on this day, was to be a sodding theme park attendant. He might not like it but its part of the job, if there's a genuine issue his superiors should protect him from either the job or the bits of it he doesn't like (i.e. annoying tourists)

They are expected to be aggressive if the situation demands it but they are soldiers all the time, are they expected to be aggressive all the time? When peace keeping? Distributing aid? Down the pub? At home with their wives?

I'd have though the deterrence mainly comes from the numbers and the billions of ££ we put into weaponry rather than the ability of an individual soldier to march without deviation, every army in the world seems to have mastered that. It might have deterred some tourists though.

I wasn't disdainful of the uniforms just pointing out that if they are there to do 'real' soldiering (i.e. called into action) they wouldn't be wearing it. I mean do we even know if the Queen was in residence on this day?

So he had to push a woman to protect the reputation of the Regiment?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but as written it says we shouldn't have an army or if we do it shouldn't be for defending the public?

Like I said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it or the stupid woman in the video, it was an understandable impulse, what I do find strange is how everyone seems to think this sort of thing is the best way of dealing with, what people are trying to portray as, a genuine threat. 

Thanks for reneforcing my point the soldier wasn't on operation in some sandy hellhole.

I said a teenage boy for just the reason I knew how you would respond.  I didn't say a kid.  A young kid gets kicked then yes, of course an issue.  This woman and my example of course were not 'kids'.

I don't know about you but I was brought up to respect people.  That includes a soldier who has gone through whatever training he needs to, to be there.  Probably spent many hours being shouted at and run ragged to teach him to respect his orders.  He may be one of those people who has dreamed of doing that job all his life and spent hours cleaning his gear to look the part.  Then some idiot tries to belittle it and gets shoved out of the way (She didn't even fall over).  And you actually think she needs protecting.  Sheesh

She’s a fellow human being (who happens to be about the only good projection of this island to the rest of the world around just now)?

I’m a raving republican btw.

That's what I thought about a lot of these comments.

I personally think the soldier is a tw*t. Tell her to move, like any normal person would. I bet he wouldn't have done it to a bloke twice the size of him.

I bet he would!

Or he may be a Gomer Pyle type ready to explode, always on a knife edge and the woman almost triggered this  

I can't disagree.   

I'm a 'wishy washy liberal'.  

I think you are the one who is belittling the soldiers.  I've got a higher expectation of their conduct and abilities.  I think a professional soldier or policeman should be able to control themselves when provoked and use the minimum appropriate force to resolve the situation.   They should be able to behave differently when marching up and down so tourists can take their picture than they would in a war zone or during a riot.     Part of their training should be about not being provoked and resorting to violence when it isn't necessary.  We kept getting told this was one of the things the British Army did better than the Americans and I'm prepared to believe that is true.

As I said before I would be perfectly happy for an armed soldier to have shot the terrorists who attacked Lee Rigby even though they were on the street outside the base.  I'd also be happy for this soldier to punch or smack this women with his rifle butt if she was trying to take the rifle away from him.   The problem is she was just a harmless woman standing still on the wrong side of a rope.  No threat at all.

Let's just assume the solider genuinely believed this was the case, shouldn't he have done something more than give her a shove? DO you think the reason he didn't do more was because it never crossed his mind that he (or the Queen) were in anyway threatened by her?

Genuine question to all those saying this is acceptable, would you do it? 

Problem is she was a tit who was standing where she knew she shouldn't be and as such got shoved. Hopefully next time she won't be such a tit.

Impossible to say for any person who is not on military guard duty with a set of (unknown) guidelines as to how to deal with persistent tourists who want to disrupt that duty.  Are there many people on UKC who could answer that?  Or do you want to create some specious scenarios to demonstrate how awful this Guardsman has acted?

Now as for me.  When I was on guard duty in the Royal Air Force, we were given guidance that said - if you feel any actual threat to your own life of the security of others you follow the official Rules of Engagement.  If you have a member of public getting too close to you, e.g. a drunken idiot, a protestor or someone who is just being mischievous then you simply push them firmly away with a flat hand.

That was our guidance.  I don't know about the guidance for this particular soldier.  What I do know is that the self-righteous up-in-arms UKCers who feel this is assault or physical abuse have lost any sense of perspective.  A 10 second video and you are trying to hang him out to dry.

Not sure if that was directed at me. I fully supported what the soldier did and that the woman should not have been such a tw*t.

I'm the kind of who generally looks for a reason to be sympathetic or give people the benefit of the doubt, and I think she was definitely a twit and just being annoying on purpose. 

Edit: I think he possibly could have done more to make her move, but perhaps she'd already not taken any hints to keep out of his way...

Sometimes a group of self absorbed undergrads walks towards me on our narrow pavements totally unaware of my presence and taking up the entire width. 

If none of them show any signs of noticing me,  I stop when they’re a couple of seconds away, stand as far to the edge of the pavement as I can, and protect my core with my elbow.  One of them sometimes walks their torso right in to it.  

Short of blasting an air horn, or stepping in to the road (where they can’t see the traffic, so don’t know it’s safe and therefore can’t reasonably expect me to step out - I always walk in to the traffic) this seems reasonable.

I’d quite like to shove them out of the way, only way they’ll apparently learn any manners.  Wouldn’t want them to fall into the road however.

We get worked up about it ? This is your 14th post on the subject!

She was being a tw*t, looking to provoke a reaction for her partner to video. She got shoved out of the way. Situation dealt with. If guardsmen started letting every moron, exhibitionist and  mischievous teenager get away with this crap ceremonial duty would quickly become untenable.

He was a soldier doing his job. Guard duty. Customer satisfaction isn't a concern he'd be familiar with.

They are expected to display aggression and fighting spirit when on duty. It takes a lot to indoctrinate (yes, indoctrinate) the average person to the point where they'll readily shoot someone. It's not something that is easily flipped on and off. If you want to know what can happen when soldiers in a peace keeping role lack aggression try googling Srebreninca. As to pubs, have you ever been for a pint in a garrison town? and yes, there are high rates of domestic violence in military marriages. 

This all seems to be news to you. I can't help but think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding both the hideous nature of war and the unpalatable truth of how effective armies psychologically prepare people to fight them.

You're just being a dick here. The kit doesn't matter a jot if the soldier has neither the skill nor mentality to use it.

Again, you're showing a lack of understanding. Even in wartime only a tiny fraction of a soldier's time is typically spent 'in action'. Real 'soldiering' is all the months and years of training and discipline it takes to make somebody functional in completely unnatural and dysfunctional situations.

Again he had to push her because she was interfering with him doing his job. Just to reiterate, if people are allowed to get away with this crap there would be no more Guardsman performing these duties. so whether your priority is tourist money or regimental history , it all goes down the pan.

Reread it, I said neither.

Yeah, you keep saying you don't feel strongly about it, post after post after post. As to best way of dealing with it. The Guardsman dealt with it in seconds, no one was harmed and he's probably dissuaded a few idiots from getting up to similar crap. How much of a better outcome can you get.

That wasn't pushing someone firmly away with a flat hand.  That was sending them flying.  It took her quite a few steps to regain her balance and she could easily have gone flat on her face.

Oh bless, you’re a tryer, I will give you that.

Sorry pal,  definitely wasn’t aimed at you.  

The loud crunching noise of hobnailed ammo boots getting rapidly louder should have been an indicator of his imminent arrival.
No need for polite Sergeant Wilson tactics with those being worn...

Yes, I've seen a few footballers who would have made a meal of it, so all credit to her for not taking a proper dive. Maybe the fact they weren't on turf had something to do with her decision.

It does seem that he followed procedure perfectly.. 

"Don't stand in the way

Should members of the public get in the way of the Foot Guards, The Guards will not march around them. The usual phrase to make people move is "Make way for the Queen's Guard".

We can all draw different conclusions from the footage.

I see someone with their back turned to the soldier. Potentially blissfully unaware he is now marching towards her and she is directly in his path. All she wants is a great photo with him in the background. Being a Chinese tourist she maybe looks at the jostle of getting in front of a barrier differently.

If this qualifies as being a tw*t, and being a tw*t qualifies anyone for a shove, I'm afraid were sliding in a direction that isn't so positive.

And understandably so.  There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion and one Tyler was arguing quite civilly.  The language used to argue your side seems completely out of proportion to the point being made.

And they don't.  They normally seem to yell an order to get out of the way and that is enough.  As it should be when the military is dealing with civilians and especially when dealing with tourists at a tourist attraction.

Perfectly well understood.  I'd have been liable for a severe dressing down if I didn't conduct myself in an agreed fashion.  Laying a finger on recruits has long been completely beyond acceptance. 

The rah-rah approach to soldiering is no excuse. 

See above.  Utterly uncalled for.

"had to push her".  Really?  I can see a few other options.  Letting her get away with it would hardly be the thin end of the wedge and mark the collapse of ceremonial duties.  There are reasons why anyone from police to medics are required to state their intentions and give warnings.  Wearing a uniform and maybe having deployed doesn't excuse that.

I was remaining quiet until I got to the bit where you compared our soldiers - people who put thier life on the line to protect us, for very little pay, often at the cost of having any stable family life, who sometimes have to deal with the darkest of ptsd, people who would be willing to die to keep undeserved wankers like you safe. You are comparing those incredible people to someone who walks around an amusement park in an outfit. For that comment I think youre an utter bellend. 

A quick google led me to the official guidelines; pretty much how you described yours.

And to the others asking about use of discretion; when guarding, or providing security, a safe space is very important. The guard needs to maintain that space, and in order to keep it as a space, no discretion is allowed, nor should any be. Perhaps we should lose the pageantry element and put the guards in black combats, which would be a pity just to pander to those who simply dont understand....

Well done for being intentionally offended.

Standing guard in ceremonial dress is an entirely separate thing from war.  I'm surprised the contrast is lost on you.

Think of this another way: plenty of ex-soldiers undertake everyday jobs or behaviours that society is free to criticise or doesn't value.  Does the fact that someone was once a cook or rifleman suddenly mean when doing those roles that they are accorded respect, and can operate to different rules, denied to the rest of society?

Parades are ceremonial.  The most common justification for the existence of a royalty and all the pageantry that goes with it is "they bring in s much tourist money!".  I can perfectly understand the comparison queen's guards, bushy hats, shiny chains, and ceremonial swords with Disneyland.

You imply that you've served but can see no application between attaining the discipline necessary for spending many mind numbingly boring hours on ceremonial guard and managing to remain alert on stag after 30 hours with no sleep. I suppose that the hours spent on drill in no way help foster unit cohesion or esprit de corp. How about the simple fact that the military likes to get young soldiers used to following orders and doing ridiculous things because one day they might be ordered to attack prepared positions when all good sense would scream at them to remain prone, face in the mud.

Those are ex-soldiers, they've rejoined the public, they're no longer expected to drop everything at a moments notice, leave friends and family thousands of miles away, for months on end. Oh, and the small matter that they regularly die for what the government tells us, are all our interests.

Couldn't give a stuff about the monarchy. All the other stuff is bound up in the same tribalism, unit cohesion, esprit de corps and the evident fact that generations before have gone through the same shit so we can go through it too. Its all part of a regimental system that is still the envy of professional militaries around the world.

Oh, and I'm really sorry you find words like tw*t and dick offensive but apparently take no offence at muppets taking the piss out of serving soldiers.

Shame it was not Corporal  Jones  from dad's  army on duty.

: They don't  like it up them "

There is a connection.  But that doesn't mean everything a soldier ever does is relevant or that things like standing guard for royalty are much more than PR events, a tourist attraction and tradition.  Most of soldiering is pure BS, repeated because few people challenge the utterly dreary methods of operating and mantras that have been passed down from intake to intake.

And the life-and-death challenges faced by the world's soldiers are pretty much absent most of the time.  Even when deployed the actual chances of harm are slim.  This growing attitude, borderline jingoism, is getting pretty close to the US situation where every uniformed man or woman is accorded a "thank-you for your service!" regardless of whether they've deployed or what kind of unit they are in.  Meanwhile millions of people expose themselves to utterly thankless hardship every day of their lives, some put their lives on the line purely in the pursuit of leisure, and will never be accorded that same respect.  Infantry life is tough.  But I'd accord ultra-marathon runners, oncologists, hospice-workers, and my binmen equal respect - they may not risk their lives, but I can't honestly claim to have seriously risked mine either.

Having been in one of those from "around the world", the regimental system isn't accorded with quite that much respect on the outside.  We all had those narratives of being the finest and most feared.  We have to tell ourselves that.  Reality is quite different.

I don't think anyone is taking the piss out of them.  They just don't believe in stacking them on pedestals by virtue of mere enlistment.  A little humility wouldn't go amiss.  In fact, of all people, if the armed forces are all they're cracked up to be, more than anyone they should be able to cope better than all others with having the piss taken out of them.

4, oldest one is called Charles.

That's the nature of a discussion forum, people respond to each other. Getting worked up is calling someone f*cking clueless, dick, wanker, bell end, dim etc like you and your cohorts have so yes you, as a group, are getting worked up.

She may well have been but we don't know. There has now been some unnamed source whose come along with what seems a pretty far fetched story (along with some of the unbelievable stretches we've had on here about his reasons, q.v. Lee Rigby) about how she had previously grabbed a rifle etc and the only thing they saw fit to do was put a rope up. 

Oh no, how would the queen be protected?

He won't but his superiors will be.

Because it goes on doesn't mean its a good thing, it may even be an unavoidable byproduct but we shouldn't applaud the fact that someone's unable to appreciate the difference between a situation where aggression/violence is called for and one that isn't.

You've made another leap. I just pointed out that a soldier being able to push a female tourist from behind is not a deterrent to our potential enemies, a f*ck ton of weapons are. 

Yes but this should not be at the expense of making them dysfunctional in natural situations. It does no one any good if these people are wound up killing machines if, 99% of the time they need to interact as normal human beings in a civilian setting. By the way, you are being deliberately pernickety about my use of the world real which I put in inverted comments and qualified what I meant.

No one has ever said she or anyone else should get away with anything, just that there are alternative ways of dealing with it. I'd have thought the modern army did something on conflict resolution and that the boot up the arse as a first reaction was a bit out moded.

You said "it certainly seems nonsensical to defend a public who increasingly seem to have little thought or understanding of of what soldiering entails", I can only see one way of interpreting that but I'm pretty sure that's not what you wanted to say and you've implied as much here.

And maybe persuaded a few more now they know they can get a rise out of them.

If she had been bothering him for some time he was let down by others not marching her off site, if she wasn't then a better outcome would have been to have a stern word.

Well done on failing to read what was said. I compared one aspect of the job to working in a theme park. Anyone with a reading comprehension age of over 10 would see that if they weren't so infused with self righteous outrage. Not everything a soldier does is heroic, not every soldier is a hero saying that takes nothing away from the armed forces or the people who serve in them, the vast majority of them are as you describe. At the same holding all army personal on a pedestal to such an extent that even questioning (remember I actually empathised with the soldier above) their actions is considered unpatriotic or whatever is a rocky road. 

You'd probably do you and your blood pressure a massive favour by re-reading whats been said because then you would see no one has done that. 

I was referring people bothering Guardsmen,not people posting on here. What was that you were saying about reading comprehension and ten year olds?

He's not guarding anything.    He's a performer in a courtyard walking up and down in fancy dress as a tourist attraction.  Nothing about his position and behaviour makes sense if his job was to effectively guard the palace behind him rather than make a show for the tourists.

The security is the wall of the palace, the CCTV watching everything and presumably people on the other side of the wall who would take care of business if someone tried to breach the actual security perimeter.

They are and they can. It's Gareth from The Office whacking off over Janes publications that can't.

I am fairly sure I used the term tit not tw*t. Not that it matters but no point p*tting a st*r wh*n ev*ry o*ne kn*ws wh*t y** m**n.  I am fairly sure seeing him walk back and forth the same line again, and again, aga*n she would have known that he was quite possible going to walk back the same way. If she wanted h*m in the background, she wouldn't have f*cking stood in-front of him.

Well he put on such a good show it has been discussed on here for a fair period of time, so he did his job perfectly... 

I feel I should share this too:  youtube.com/watch?v=e65-wLp1yyI& (it's short, no tourists or children are physically harmed)

And this (one soldier is probably still having sleepless nights about the experience):  youtube.com/watch?v=XSoJqdPi4Iw&

Unnamed source says that it was the climax of a series of attempts to provoke a response from the guardsman:

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/queens-guard-video_uk_5b585303e4b0de86...

years ago I went on a trek to Everest base camp. a bloke I got to be mates with was in the police as a queens guard. him and the other police members are there to guard the queen. not young lads in red coats and stupid hats. they carry guns with no ammo and have no power or rights to go around assaulting the tourists.  

Good on Her Queenfulness for getting to EBC! I'm impressed.