UNIFORMED SOLDIERS THROWN OUT OF BAR HOURS AFTER HOMECOMING PARADE FOR "NOT BEING SMART ENOUGH"
In an extraordinary incident in the London borough of Croydon, not so long ago, some uniformed soldiers were asked to leave
the bar of a local hostelry for not being smart enough for the strict dress code that the establishment operated. Given my
ex-Serviceman's tribal loyalty to the Army, my initial reaction was unsurprisingly one of indignation. However, on noting how
the soldiers were actually dressed on this occasion, I was inclined to think that the local hostelry's action may not have been
entirely unjustified, and that to some extent the predicament that these soldiers found themselves in might, in a way, have
been of their own, or perhaps more correctly, of the Army's own making.
For some inexplicable reason, the Army seems to have lowered its own high standards in military dress for ceremonial occasions.
Although the occasion for these soldiers' presence in the borough was a homecoming parade, they had turned out it seems, not
in their best kit, but rather in the desert fatigues and boots that form the everyday working dress in Afghanistan. This
particular style of dress now seems to have become the Army's preferred choice of dress whenever appearing in public, no matter
how special the occasion. Yet it is difficult to think of any good reason why soldiers should be marching through the towns and
cities of England in desert fatigues at all, never mind yellow suede desert boots. Desert fatigues and desert boots belong in a
desert environment, - not in the temperate conditions of northern Europe. In fact I believe they are not the regulation dress
for Home Service.
The British Army has a regulation dress for every theatre of operations, every occasion and every type of activity, whether it
concerns desert patrols, normal work in the camp or a homecoming parade in Britain. As might be imagined, a homecoming parade
accompanied by ceremonial route march through a regiment's home town is a very special occasion, much cherished by regiments of
the British Army. The correct dress for a ceremonial route march is properly either best service dress or No 1 dress, - complete
with razor sharp creases and highly "bulled" boots. No British soldier so turned out, could possibly be thrown out of an
establishment for "not being smart enough", - or if he were, would have good cause for complaint.
To many an old soldier, the mere fact that some soldiers were pulled up for scruffy dress may seem a poor reflection on the
modern Army's dress discipline and may well lead them to apportion blame to Army leadership for its failure in this regard.
However, the cynic in me sees the hand of politicians behind this uncharacteristic decision of the Army to forego its
usual smartness of turn-out in favour of a dress that may be symbolic of the desert combat zone from whence these
soldiers had just returned, but which is evidently not smart enough even for the local hostelry. I cannot imagine that the Army,
steeped as it is in tradition and discipline in all matters including dress, would ever put symbolism before dress regulation.
I see a politician's opportunism behind this decision: the desert camouflage dress, scruffy though it is, has PR value as an
emblem of the so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan whereas the No 1 dress is merely smart and soldierly.