Originally Posted by brave-coward

The more it is discussed, the more I wonder whether this programme says more about the BBC than it does about the army. The selection of interesting characters, the comprehensive educated former electrician done good and the ineffective ex public school boy who, even with all of the advantages, comes off as a twit. Heaven forbid that the Beeb should focus on an ineffective ex comprehensive school boy or a superbly professional public school boy joining his family regiment. I remember there being good and bad at Sandhurst and neither category was monopolised by any particular social background. Seems to me that the director had an axe to grid in terms of British society and did so partly by his selection of these OCdts.

Rather than having a specific 'social' axe to grind, perhaps the producer is more media savvy than social engineer.

It is far more socially acceptable to pan those who are seen to be at an advantage than those who are seen as less privileged. Had the roles been reversed then the whole series would have been panned as class conscious and elitist (why is elitism so frowned upon).

In exactly the same way they had to show a female that would eventually be commissioned because to show a female failing would have been construed as unacceptable and would have harridans like Harman vowing to make Sandhurst more female friendly by insisting on 50% female commissioning or some such.

Perhaps that's why no black or Asian cadets were featured although there were both in background shots. The possibility of showing a non-Caucasian cadet failing would be seized upon by both sides of the political centre. Could you imagine the uproar if a black or Asian cadet was told at interview that he wouldn't 'fit in'?

The British Army is seen as very much part of the British Institution. Documentaries like Sandhurst are designed to dispel certain myths about chinless wonders and hooray Henry's by reinforcing the comprehensive boy made good.

The producer must have thanked his lucky stars when he met Mr Thompson. From a normal background, personable, articulate and with both feet firmly on the ground and who aimed for a regiment that chose it's officers on ability first and foremost and whose officers generally fit in well with each other because they are all motivated by the same things.

Clearly the producer may have wished to make a point or two but he will have been only too aware of the pitfalls of championing a cause that is seen by many as outdated and unnecessary. He will also have been aware that there would be far more parents of enlisted men and women who will be looking to these future officers to bring their children home safe and sound wherever possible. To know that there are Thompsons around and even that there are Harbords who will fail can only be reassuring to them and, indeed, their children.

Originally Posted by Markintime

To know that there are Thompsons around and even that there are Harbords who will fail can only be reassuring to them and, indeed, their children.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Danny_Dravot

My point being though, that Arms and Services selection 20 odd years ago was done largely by virtue of socio-economic hierarchy, schools attended and (parental) networking, not by achievement, attainment, ambition or potential.

Not sure if that's true. For all my gags on here I Commissioned into the Cav twenty years ago having attended a minor (but very old) Public School with a Father who was a Government Civil Engineer and a Mother who was (at the time) an accounts assistant.

Admittedly my Father was the first not to serve in about five generations, but Grandfather was a Captain in the RAEC & predecessors had been Sergeants & Warrant Officers (for some reason, despite Dad's side of the family being resolutely Southern English some were in the Seaforths). If anything my Mother's family coming from the Republic is what made me acceptable to an Irish Regiment, despite her ancestors having been hedge schoolmasters...

Originally Posted by Schaden

You obviously believe in fairy tales sunshine - most people looking at the Sandhurst programme are going to be asking themselves why a candidate, obviously unsuited for the role is pushed through due to the privileges afforded to him of his connections, why is he given 2nd and 3rd chances when it is patently obvious that he wouldn't make the grade as a private soldier much less as an officer...It's actually pretty disgraceful and does the Army no favours at all.

Schaden, you're a very angry man. Do documentary-lite programs normally do this to you?

Everyone deserves second and third chances, which is why the backterming procedure involves a series of increasingly severe warnings, all of which he recieved and failed to respond to. A guy destined for the RAMC was backtermed a week before commissioning in my company; he hadn't got so far due to influence by any means, but he had used up all his chances and hadn't reached the fitness standard required - in both respects just like Harbord.

The 7kg shortfall on the loaded march was an integrity call, and I'm suprised he got off so lightly. A guy destined for the HCR in my intake was backtermed for copying an essay, and another destined for the HDiv was backtermed for denying pissing in a bottle during a formal dinner night a fortnight before commissioning. Privilege had no effect whatsoever on their treatment.

Incidentally, I've trained private solders, and frankly the bloke in question would be quite likely to pass out in the middle third.

Originally Posted by Schaden

Ah well - four years then a nice little job with the bank eh?

So what? I've known good soldiers at every rank who did a really good job but didn't make a career out of it. Some of them were TA blokes who actually worked for banks... crazy. Some other blokes were intent on seeing out a full 22 and were pretty awful. So what's your point? Oh, its that he was a public schoolboy, and potentially a bit of an arse - like most 21 year olds.

You must have found the endurance races in your own training particularly hard, what with lugging around that chip as well as a log or a couple of ammo-tin-handbags.

I don't believe in fairy tales, partly because I have more experience of RMAS and recent ops than you. But more pertinently to the programme in question, and this thread, I have a more realistic idea of what the public thinks of the Army. Believe me, they're not as bothered, chippy and cynical as you. To the average civilian the course looks hard and the regime tough but fair.

Suck it up, sunshine, eh?

Gentlemen

Remember the BBC are making a programme for the audience, not the Army.

Carry on.

The focus on three individuals and the way the programme panned out seems to miss something. Presumably in docs like this quite a large number of candidateshave to be followed initially because the producer can't foretell which are going to disappear and be no use to him, or who will turn bolshie and screw up his filming. In the end it may be Hogwarts with guns to the bods themselves, but to those of the actual home TV audience who haven't served, and are blind to the technicalities, it's just Big Brother with guns and who is going to be felt-penned out next week.

Originally Posted by Charlie_Cong

Schaden, you're a very angry man. Do documentary-lite programs normally do this to you?

Everyone deserves second and third chances, which is why the backterming procedure involves a series of increasingly severe warnings, all of which he recieved and failed to respond to. A guy destined for the RAMC was backtermed a week before commissioning in my company; he hadn't got so far due to influence by any means, but he had used up all his chances and hadn't reached the fitness standard required - in both respects just like Harbord.

The 7kg shortfall on the loaded march was an integrity call, and I'm suprised he got off so lightly. A guy destined for the HCR in my intake was backtermed for copying an essay, and another destined for the HDiv was backtermed for denying pissing in a bottle during a formal dinner night a fortnight before commissioning. Privilege had no effect whatsoever on their treatment.

Incidentally, I've trained private solders, and frankly the bloke in question would be quite likely to pass out in the middle third.

"Four years and a nice little job with the bank?" You must have found the endurance races in your own training particularly hard, what with lugging around that chip as well as a log or a couple of ammo-tin-handbags.

I don't believe in fairy tales, but I have more recent experience of RMAS and the army than you and a more realistic idea of what the public thinks of the Army.

Suck it up, sunshine, eh?

Lol - the "You must be angry" response when you hear something that doesn't fit in with your everything is perfect and wonderful little exercise in bullshit?

It's a PR exercise gone horribly wrong and I'm sure there are some very grumpy senior bods kicking their labradors and shouting at their orderly room sergeants even now.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Gentlemen

Remember the BBC are making a programme for the audience, not the Army.

Carry on.

Yup.

The Guardian: "...a fabulous documentary... observational, non-judgemental, refreshing…"

The Independent: "Riveting viewing”

The Telegraph: "A remarkable fly-on-the-wall documentary. What elevates the series beyond the stereotypes…is its ability to be simultaneously sensitive and utterly brutal."

and finally.........................

The Mirror: "They may have posher voices than the lads in BBC3’s Young Soldiers series but you’ll be hard-pressed to spot much leadership potential."

You pays your money and you takes your choice...

Originally Posted by baboon6

Are there not certain common standards OCdts need to achieve in certain task/exams etc in order to pass out from RMAS?

Yes, there are. In his final interview he was told he had passed all the mandatory tests, so in effect he gets a pass. He was back termed for a good old fashioned ''attitude'' fail.

My impression of him isn't that he was bad, just coasting. The constant need for DS motivational intervention confirms it.

Originally Posted by Schaden

Lol - the "You must be angry" response when you hear something that doesn't fit in with your everything is perfect and wonderful little exercise in bullshit?

It's a PR exercise gone horribly wrong and I'm sure there are some very grumpy senior bods kicking their labradors and shouting at their orderly room sergeants even now.

Bearing in mind the rigmarole involved in getting permission to film and gaining 'unrestricted' access at Sandhurst (see earliest posts) I would imaging that the MoD and senior RMA Officers would have insisted on having sight of a final edit prior to broadcast. This does happen, despite producers claims that they always retain total freedom of expression. There's always a quid pro quo whenever a large organization is under the televisual microscope and in this case OPSEC/PERSEC would also have to be considered.