ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Jorrocks

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by rasselas

Isn't Sandhurst part of the problem? I remember plenty of good lads who turned up at the start of the course without the first notion of a signet ring but seemed to feel they ought to have one by the end. Sad thing about the 'social element' of the academy as i recall it was that it was as cringe inducingly cack-handed to those who probably didn't need any instruction as it was patronising and crass to those who it seemed to think did.

I'm with Charlie Cong on this and wonder if its not also telling that the most chilled out messes (everyone on first name terms, cutting around in jeans and generally behaving like normal young guys in their mid-twenties during their (very rare) time off) are the ones which traditionally have the least to socially prove (Foot Guards, Household Chav etc.)

That said, one of the best moments of the whole year at Sandhurst was when the CSgt realized that one of the blokes in the Platoon was head of his clan and had the right of primo nocte over his daughter!

My bold - I take it that unspoken social rules are more your thing than being clear about what is, or had been, rightly or wrongly, expected of young officers?

I seem to remember a story about one of these socially proven regiments sharing a mess with the RAF but failing to be able to compromise on anything. But then, I suppose, one shouldn't believe everything one hears.

One of the aspects I found most disturbing about my expereinces at Sandhurst was the barely-hidden sneering amongst many who felt themselves to be socially proven towards their shabbier-heeled peers. A rather cavalier rudeness was evident in some who quite frankly should have known better (if they were so socially secure), and failed to realise that Onasander wasn't the most up to date military commentator to model their leadership style on.

Fecking chippy post.

Do you think so? I am terribly humbled. I have not been clear, evidently.

In my experience the best mess that I have ever been in with Young Officers treating visitors in a polite and friendly manner, particularly to transitary types, was the HCR. Conversely my experience of Guards Messes at the start of my career mirrors my later experience at RMAS (on the staff) where a number of "potential" guards officers gave an impression of incredible rudeness, obnoxiousness and pomposity. Many failed to get to the regiment they felt they should have been in.

RMAS, I believe, has tried to address the issue that still exists in that some people feel that the traditions of the Army are being eroded. That erosion is magnified by PAYD and UK garrison life, for those who think the erosion is taking place. Striking a balance between the bollox and the essential is difficult. Extrapolating an insistance on shiny shoes as a first step to operational performance is difficult to justify, however admirable the sentiment might be. Correlating social conduct with trustworthiness in an era in which neither is regarded as particularly necessary to progress is increasingly difficult. The Army's ostensibly Victorian standards which are applied unevenly are making us look plain silly.

The worst characteristics of the worst types of officers are ruinously mimicked by OCdts, who believe that appearances are more important than substance. Those OCdts who prided themselves on their social performance, with nothing more than an adequate, if casual, military performance were, and probably still are, more visible than any other stereotype.

But if I'm being fecking chippy, I'll shut up.

Originally Posted by rasselas

"One of the aspects I found most disturbing about my expereinces at Sandhurst was the barely-hidden sneering amongst many who felt themselves to be socially proven towards their shabbier-heeled peers"

Couldn't agree more. I think my point was that surely in the modern Army there's no requirement for reinforcing the very stereotypes that the above types you mentioned misguidedly thrive on. One of the strengths of the current Academy is its diversity, did my Platoon (as it was a scruffy, insurbodinate bunch but damn fine soldiers) really need a shoe inspection?I

If anything the Regimental selection process seemed a more filter of placing people where they might or might not feel comfortable/fit in. I suppose one of the positives to take away from everyone being so overdeployed is that most young officers get to prove themselves where it matters anyway.

Ironic in a modern "fighting" army that the "wrong" kind of shoe is viewed as leadership defect whereas staggering arrogance isn't.

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by Jorrocks

Originally Posted by barbs

Originally Posted by rasselas

Isn't Sandhurst part of the problem? I remember plenty of good lads who turned up at the start of the course without the first notion of a signet ring but seemed to feel they ought to have one by the end. Sad thing about the 'social element' of the academy as i recall it was that it was as cringe inducingly cack-handed to those who probably didn't need any instruction as it was patronising and crass to those who it seemed to think did.

I'm with Charlie Cong on this and wonder if its not also telling that the most chilled out messes (everyone on first name terms, cutting around in jeans and generally behaving like normal young guys in their mid-twenties during their (very rare) time off) are the ones which traditionally have the least to socially prove (Foot Guards, Household Chav etc.)

That said, one of the best moments of the whole year at Sandhurst was when the CSgt realized that one of the blokes in the Platoon was head of his clan and had the right of primo nocte over his daughter!

My bold - I take it that unspoken social rules are more your thing than being clear about what is, or had been, rightly or wrongly, expected of young officers?

I seem to remember a story about one of these socially proven regiments sharing a mess with the RAF but failing to be able to compromise on anything. But then, I suppose, one shouldn't believe everything one hears.

One of the aspects I found most disturbing about my expereinces at Sandhurst was the barely-hidden sneering amongst many who felt themselves to be socially proven towards their shabbier-heeled peers. A rather cavalier rudeness was evident in some who quite frankly should have known better (if they were so socially secure), and failed to realise that Onasander wasn't the most up to date military commentator to model their leadership style on.

Fecking chippy post.

Do you think so? I am terribly humbled. I have not been clear, evidently.

In my experience the best mess that I have ever been in with Young Officers treating visitors in a polite and friendly manner, particularly to transitary types, was the HCR. Conversely my experience of Guards Messes at the start of my career mirrors my later experience at RMAS (on the staff) where a number of "potential" guards officers gave an impression of incredible rudeness, obnoxiousness and pomposity. Many failed to get to the regiment they felt they should have been in.

RMAS, I believe, has tried to address the issue that still exists in that some people feel that the traditions of the Army are being eroded. That erosion is magnified by PAYD and UK garrison life, for those who think the erosion is taking place. Striking a balance between the bollox and the essential is difficult. Extrapolating an insistance on shiny shoes as a first step to operational performance is difficult to justify, however admirable the sentiment might be. Correlating social conduct with trustworthiness in an era in which neither is regarded as particularly necessary to progress is increasingly difficult. The Army's ostensibly Victorian standards which are applied unevenly are making us look plain silly.

The worst characteristics of the worst types of officers are ruinously mimicked by OCdts, who believe that appearances are more important than substance. Those OCdts who prided themselves on their social performance, with nothing more than an adequate, if casual, military performance were, and probably still are, more visible than any other stereotype.

But if I'm being fecking chippy, I'll shut up.

Sorry, I was being unnecessarily flippant earlier. You are quite right, the external wrapper is irrelevant, manners maketh man. I remember my generation (RMAS 1982) had an unhealthy proportion of OCdts whose role model appeared to be a tweed wearing John Mills type figure. I take your point about some of the worst excesses coming from some of the most junior officers in the more arrivist messes. I´m glad to hear that standards of behaviour have not dropped in my old regiment.

Originally Posted by sanchauk

Ironic in a modern "fighting" army that the "wrong" kind of shoe is viewed as leadership defect whereas staggering arrogance isn't.

Wrong shoe: Not a leadership defect certainly. However, it might be viewed and not fitting in with the "team" ethos.

Arrogance: One man's arrogance is another's self confidence. I've met quite a few individuals who I felt were arrogant. However, the majority were (annoyingly) very good at their job.

Personally, I think some of the many eccentricities of the British Army are what makes us what we are. If you strip them all away we will be no different from the Yanks or the Boxheads.

Personally, I subscribe to the 'Sam Vimes' school of thought on rings - fecking dangerous and prone to catching your finger on things.

I've got one myself, given to me on the advent of my 18th, but I wear it very, very occasionally (usually in the presence of the relative that gifted it to me!).

Originally Posted by Jorrocks

I´m glad to hear that standards of behaviour have not dropped in my old regiment.

If I was honest with myself before I visited, I would have known that it would have been. Manners had not been dispensed with as a sop to gritty warriorness! I was hit by how broad a church the HCR was and that those differences made the sum far greater (backed up by quite significant operational performances).

If I may wade back in here briefly...

Ultimately, the 'issue' of signet rings is not an issue as such, except for those who wish to make it so, be they 'for' or 'against'. Personally, I'm suspicious of those who make undue hay of this subject, as they're either stirring the old class warrior argument about 'hossifers' and using the minor point of signet rings as a means of reinforcing some clapped-out stereotypes......or, those who are very vocal in their 'support' for the wearing of signet rings are, I feel, often snobbish wannabes, seeking to boost their own social standing (which in these instances I find, rarely merits signet rings or any sort of heraldic paraphenalia at all) and engage in some stupid and irritating Sloane-esque behaviour. Should the wearing (or not) of a signet ring make any difference to how an officer conducts himself - no. But does it? - I hope not. I unfortunately cannot speak for myself here, but I imagine that such trifling concerns as signet rings do rather fade into the background when one is hunkered down in some irrigation ditch in Helmand, having God-knows-what thrown at you by the Taliban. Character and competence are the real determining hallmarks - the presence or absence of a piece of metal on one's finger should matter not a jot*.

*unless of course you take inspiration from such things...

I actually did lose mine precisely in a ditch in Helmand, good old NAAFI insurance paid up before the rentals found out but if anyone spots anything shiny lying around the LSV I'd be grateful . . .