The Undercover Soldier - BBC1

**hammy123** · 22-09-2008, 14:09

Whilst I was a cadet in the early 80's, there was an AI who used to stick a needle into you when you were in the scoff Q. Can I now sue for bullying? claims direct, here I come.

**WO2.Ghandi** · 22-09-2008, 14:16

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

It still seems like there's a lot on here who have preconceptions that you can't countenance as possibly being wrong in any way.

"Once we've set off the mines and unleashed the greatest artillery barrage in history there'll scarcely be a Jerry left on the Somme willing to put up a fight"

**Muckster** · 22-09-2008, 14:18

Trust me I know how wrong I can be, just ask the missus.......

Any chance that you could countenance yourself being wrong???

**halo_jones** · 22-09-2008, 14:18

Originally Posted by ABrighter2006

Originally Posted by hammy123

Originally Posted by ABrighter2006

As an observation to the pizzing contest going on here - it would be very interesting to know, just how many of the posters doing the armchair training standards and validation, have ever served on such a training team?

Me thank you very much. You can call me staff if you like

and you can beat me senseless whenever you want Hammy! :D

My point was that the "understanding" of what is involved in training pers for pretty much guaranteed operational tours, seems to be pretty thin on the ground here. I don't subscibe to the "Having a bad day? then smack a recruit senseless" rhetoric, but some of the posters here, need a reality check - you're not training these recruits to sit in your call-centre, or sit behind a check-out.

Does that make sense Staff?

Totally

However one or two posters also seem to be unable too grasp either the underlying issues regarding what was done to make this program and see them of no importance! they also seem not too understand that no one currently serving and many as my self who are now out! Condone Bullying either.

They also seem unwilling to accept the point that percentage wise 5 individuals given the size of ATR's is a drop in the ocean, one may say 5 is to many but we are talking about the real world not some utopian society were bad people never exist.

edited for gopping diction spelling and typos

**King_of_the_Burpas** · 22-09-2008, 14:19

Originally Posted by ABrighter2006

As an observation to the pizzing contest going on here - it would be very interesting to know, just how many of the posters doing the armchair training standards and validation, have ever served on such a training team?

Not served on a training team but have been on the receiving end. One of our instructors had been investigated for bullying and was cleared. But his card was marked for being investigated from the first day we were there. Bloody good chap he was, actually. Unpleasant at times but I would have failed the WHT without his rather rude encouragement. Might have ended up shooting someone, God forbid, or myself, who knows?

We're going off thread a bit, though.

The programme was crap. It failed to live up to the most basic standards of investigative journalism, puffed up by the post-Hutton BBC. Let's hope that the checking and double checking that was undertaken during, say, John Ware's investigation of Omagh for Panorama was a little better.

I'm SURE it was, btw.

But Pte Sharp's prog undermined the credibility of the BBC far more than it did that of the British Army.

If there is bullying, then it is a disgrace and should be (and in this circumstances IS being) investigated. It was already being investigated before the BBC rather desperately crimped it off into the schedule at the last minute.

Good job the BBC found a full time editing job for Sharp to do despite making 3000 trained staff redundant. I'm not sure he'd get work in the media anywhere else now.

**blocksweat** · 22-09-2008, 14:20

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

It still seems like there's a lot on here who have preconceptions that you can't countenance as possibly being wrong in any way.

"Once we've set off the mines and unleashed the greatest artillery barrage in history there'll scarcely be a Jerry left on the Somme willing to put up a fight"

How many Nancy's have you counted then?

**IT_Guy** · 22-09-2008, 14:26

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

**Thunderer** · 22-09-2008, 14:29

Originally Posted by IT_Guy

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

In my opinion

*It's ok
*No it isn't hitting
*It's ok
*It's ok
*It's ok

**paratus** · 22-09-2008, 14:31

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

(my bold)

Perception is the key word here, regarding the making of this programme. This so called 'roperter' joined the Army, yes JOINED THE ARMY, with the sole aim of finding bullying going on (there was no other reason for him to do it, and it was stated at the start).

So what he ended up with was a programme in which it is perceived that 'bullying' is a problem in the Army, and as has been said a few posts up, the percentages arent bad.

I'm sure I, or anyone else, could go undercover in Pizza Hut/McDonalds/Barclays Bank/Oxfam Shops and 'find' bullying, racism or any manner of other things if thats what had been set out to find, you just need to speak tothe right (or wrong, whichever your viewpoint is) people. No-one 100% enjoys the job that they do 100% of the time, and at the same time it is human nature that we will never 100% like everyone we work with or are managed by 100% of the time, so you will always find one person with an axe to grind against another. let alone the fact that these young men are testosterone filled, gung-ho and raring to get out in to the adult Army world, and that this 'reporter' was probably a fair bit older, and therefore probably had a degree of influence over the other recruits.

**Muckster** · 22-09-2008, 14:31

Originally Posted by Thunderer

Originally Posted by IT_Guy

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

In my opinion

*It's ok
*No it isn't hitting
*It's ok
*It's ok
*It's ok

Can't see those answers in the manual ????

**insert-coin-here** · 22-09-2008, 14:31

Originally Posted by IT_Guy

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

You forgot to add...

'greasing up your engorged manpole and sliding it up a 13 year old boy who is on a ACF jolly and missing his mum.'

**Alsacien** · 22-09-2008, 14:37

Originally Posted by Muckster

Originally Posted by Thunderer

Originally Posted by IT_Guy

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

In my opinion

*It's ok
*No it isn't hitting
*It's ok
*It's ok
*It's ok

Can't see those answers in the manual ????

Maybe he is using his "perception"

**halo_jones** · 22-09-2008, 14:39

Ok thunder and WO2.Ghandi step up and answer this....Was the BBC and Sharp right to subvert common and military law to make a program allegedly in the public interest that prove nothing. and the get away with undermining the without censure?

**WO2.Ghandi** · 22-09-2008, 14:45

Originally Posted by Muckster

Originally Posted by Thunderer

Originally Posted by IT_Guy

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

May be that's why there a simple rules like "Don't hit recruits". Saves a lot of confusion over perception.

Saves confusion eh?

OK, how about 'pushing' recruits?

'Pulling' recruits? Is that 'Hitting'?

'Shaking' is OK is it?

Friendly 'slap' on the shoulder/helmet maybe?

How about touching them at all? Standing too close maybe?

Simple rules my arrse.

Get fcuking real you tube.

In my opinion

*It's ok
*No it isn't hitting
*It's ok
*It's ok
*It's ok

Can't see those answers in the manual ????

Fair point, but there are still those who are trying to condone ABH in the name of training. It's the same law that applies to the rest of society so it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

Oh, 'n of course my perception is always bang on - I'm the son of God remember :D

**chieftiff** · 22-09-2008, 14:47

Originally Posted by WO2.Ghandi

When someone is filmed saying that they were urinated on, had their own nose bust by being punched through a respirator, being beaten hard enough to cause lasting damage to their hand that is testimony not hearsay. The black soldier who suffered the last of those explained that clearly enough on film for you. If you need to check your dictionary look up denial why you're at it. There was overwhelming evidence of abuse yet the, much berated, Mr Sharp still had the objectivity to report the positive aspects of his training and praise the instructors who were able to carry out their duties within the law.

Just catching up here so my apologies if this is covered already, there was no testimony in the programme I watched! There were allegations and some rumours of allegations, allegations are assertions without proof in my book, testimony would be a sworn statement which the accuser promises to prove.

That aside I think you've missed the point of most people's complaints. There was an opportunity for the BBC to put their hands up and say "we uncovered some evidence of possible bullying, but the Army are already investigating that because they have the processes in place to deal with these events, they have therefore fulfilled their promise to address issues surrounding bullying"

That would be an accurate description of what took place during the six months this guy "investigated" undercover. A negative slant was placed on the whole programme and it's build up in the press, for that alone the BBC deserve a slating. Serious journalism requires an honestly unbiased and neutral stance not sensationalism, objectivity was not an aspect of this documentary that I recall from watching it twice.