Royal guard video kicking child in the way

[DickMabutt73962]

I wasn't born and raised in the UK and am not into the culture of 'tradition' but I don't understand the majority of reactions to this video blaming the parent and saying of the guards 'it's their job'.

Can anyone more enlightened explain to me why this was necessary? As far as I can see the guard is marching, not saving London from attack. I don't see why a side-step wouldn't work. And if this is a register thing then maybe future control of how close members of the public are able to get in their path

www.indy100.com/viral/queen-royal-guard-trampled-kid-tiktok-video-b1983965

Adrianneanneanne

Moron is disablist.
Disablist terms are disablist however and whoever they are aimed at. You can't excuse them by saying they are disablist only if used against a disabled person.
A child calling another, a m**g in the playground is being bloody disablist, whether that child has special needs or not.

Sorry, not meaning to derail the thread.

Some of the comments in this thread are incredible.

Yes, the little boy shouldn't have been standing there, and maybe his parents should have been keeping a closer eye on him. That does not excuse the reaction of the guard. In no other context would this be okay. If I'm walking and there is a little boy in my way - even a rude little boy who deliberately refuses to get out of my way - I am not justified, as a grown adult, in barrelling into him and knocking him over. And then having people excuse it with 'well, he learned his lesson, didn't he?' or some similarly unpleasant comment.

Wearing an archaic uniform does not make it any more acceptable. The guard didn't have to stop and have a chat with the boy, distracting him from his duty. He just had to behave like a sensible human being. Move over himself, or stop until the boy has moved. That it's not tradition or that he'd be slightly out of time with the other guards isn't a good enough reason not to. The poster who mentioned the authoritarian streak some seem to have was right, I think. It's not okay just because they're in uniform, or they're well-trained and hardworking, or that's the way it's always been done. Knocking over a child is the wrong thing to do.

It was a total accident and has been hyped to death simply to cause a sensation.

Those parents ... my god. Useless
Kid wasnt a little kid
Old enough to know better
Same goes for the parents .

This has sent me down a rabbit hole of paying videos of guards reacting to the public getting in the way or baiting them.
These videos show that some parts where they march do have barriers from the public, although the public sometimes ignore them. But the soldiers also march down the main pathways in the Tower. The only way to separate them from the public, would be to prevent the public accessing the Tower grounds at all.
A lot of the videos featuring people deliberately annoying guards appear to be Americans. One obnoxious man deliberately annoying a sentry, gets punched and knocked out.

Had that one soldier deviated from his path, he'd have probably caused literal chaos in the ranks.

So in the unlikely event of spotting a terrorist while you march around staring straight ahead and you have to take action, you might run the risk of causing literal chaos in the ranks?

Are you suggesting that they are only trained to march around in a highly offensive manner with no purpose to it whatsoever, and no training at all in Plans B, C, D, E, etc? No different scenarios drilled? For example, what to do if a baby's buggy or a wheelchair rolls away accidentally, straight into your path, or someone is startled by the bellowing sergeant, turns too fast, and falls onto the pavement. Or a child who didn't expect to be where he is is roared at a split second before a soldier marches straight into him...

Is this complete inability to cope with the slightest divergence from Plan A an effective way to prevent terrorist attacks?

So many of these excuses are total nonsense, utter BS.

And all this “oh but what if there was a terrorist attack” there wasn’t and it would’ve been so easy to divert their steps a tiny bit to avoid aggressively stamping on an 8 year old kid.

Woah and there's another one! It's 'aggressively stamping' now!

Fuck me. They walk among us.

Never before have I felt more surrounded by delusional, hysterical idiots than I do right now.

Never before have I felt more surrounded by delusional, hysterical idiots than I do right now.

😂 This!

THE SOLDIER RETURNED TO SEE THE CHILD. TO CHECK HE WAS OK.

Genuinely puzzled by the number of people who cannot see the difference between driving a car and walking.

But this thread is about a British soldier trampling a child outside the Tower of London.

This literally didn't happen. No trampling took place. A collision yes, but no trampling.

Have you been on the sauce @mathanxiety?

I'm going to hasard a guess that the soldiers at Arlington are in proper uniforms too, not quasi-Disney outfits.

Yes, their uniforms are unmistakably military, extremely sharp, downright manicured in fact. They are required to present immaculately.

^The child got in the way and it was an accident.
He seemed ok and he has a cool story to tell.
Parents need to look after their kids better.^

When small, one of the DC veered into the path of a national treasure. Tbf, it would’ve made a much better anecdote had the treasure ‘trampled’ (stepped over) the toddler.

Never before have I felt more surrounded by delusional, hysterical idiots than I do right now.

It's quite something.

@ILoveYou3000, if this were a mere collision, then both parties would have retained both feet on the ground, with perhaps some stumbling on the part of the smaller party.

Unfortunately, the child ended up under the feet of the Guardsman, hence 'trampled'.

I am finding the hair splitting here really sad.

@WalkersAreNotTheOnlyCrisps

Never before have I felt more surrounded by delusional, hysterical idiots than I do right now.

😂 This!

Seriously. I can barely believe this thread. I am very far from being a royalist, but I do have a functioning and rational brain. This is such a storm in a teacup, not to mention being borne of fake news (since the video was cut so it didn't show the soldier coming back)

What on earth is the matter with people?

Top-class satire from mathanxiety on this thread, btw.

@ILoveYou3000

But this thread is about a British soldier trampling a child outside the Tower of London.

This literally didn't happen. No trampling took place. A collision yes, but no trampling.

Have you been on the sauce @mathanxiety?

Some posters are renowned for being deliberately contrary.

It’s best not to engage. That way madness lies.

Walkersarenottheonlycrisps I agree. It's unbelievable.

This thread is a fascinating example of how we see what we want to see. It's really interesting to ponder criminal trials and the inconsistencies of witness accounts who have all seen the same thing but describe it in completely different ways. Not the point of the thread I know but it's helping me pass the time on a rainy day. I mean I have loads to do but this is better.

@KeflavikAirport

No-one is saying they should go off piste. Some people are saying they could be trained to react appropriately to a range of likely scenarios. And if they have a proper security role to play maybe lose the hats that stop them from seeing properly.

Rather than retrain them all it's easier to just tell people to mind their kids. Most people do, which is why this case made the news at all

I know these 'soldiers' are part of the monarchy and all its weird and outdated traditions but these soldiers couldn't run a mile in those ridiculous outfits. Surely they're just there for the tourists now and that's okay to admit.

You're so wrong, it's unreal. They're hardcore. They've served, their training, strength and discipline is second to none. You have to be some of the best to be in Queens guard. The ignorance on this thread is outstanding

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

THE SOLDIER RETURNED TO SEE THE CHILD. TO CHECK HE WAS OK.

But that doesn't fit the narrative!

[quote mathanxiety]@ILoveYou3000, if this were a mere collision, then both parties would have retained both feet on the ground, with perhaps some stumbling on the part of the smaller party.

Unfortunately, the child ended up under the feet of the Guardsman, hence 'trampled'.

I am finding the hair splitting here really sad.[/quote]
The definition of trampled is "to tread on and crush". The soldier did neither if those things, hence "not trampled"

@saraclara I totally agree with you!