Useful

**cpunk** · 11-02-2012, 14:44

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Nobody is saying otherwise, but the basis upon which he was initially selected was not meritocratic.

That's an assumption you're making but I suspect none of us actually know how he was selected as a confirmed cadet.

My experience over 29 years in the army is that Household Division officers come from a much wider social spectrum than most people assume. In any case, the point I actually made was that I don't believe any regiment or corps in the British Army would look askance at an officer cadet who did well at Sandhurst; in fact I would suggest that the idea is ridiculous.

**crow_bag** · 11-02-2012, 14:47

Originally Posted by Showmi_York-Hunt

Seconded. Would such a weak initial candidate have gotten confirmed cadet status in HC (or any regt/corps) without family connections Crow Bag?

There was an Ocdt who was back termed from Final Ex to the Junior Term. He still went on to commission in to his chosen regiment and he wasn't a confirmed cadet, so it can happen.

**Pyianno** · 11-02-2012, 14:49

Originally Posted by cpunk

That's an assumption you're making but I suspect none of us actually know how he was selected as a confirmed cadet.

Actually he says in the programme that it was because of his family connections.

Originally Posted by cpunk

In any case, the point I actually made was that I don't believe any regiment or corps in the British Army would look askance at an officer cadet who did well at Sandhurst; in fact I would suggest that the idea is ridiculous.

You originally said social grandeur was not a criterion considered - the limited evidence I have access to would seem to confirm otherwise.

I agree with your other point though, nobody would shun a high performer on the basis of their performing well.

**cpunk** · 11-02-2012, 14:56

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Actually he says in the programme that it was because of his family connections.

'Family connections' don't necessarily imply social grandeur, and in any case, he wasn't necessarily correct. I had no access to the deliberations behind my 'regimental sponsorship'.

You originally said social grandeur was not a criterion considered - the limited evidence I have access to would seem to confirm otherwise.

I haven't seen any of this evidence yet, other than a claim about some dodgy sucker on a TV documentary.

**Pyianno** · 11-02-2012, 14:59

Originally Posted by cpunk

'Family connections' don't necessarily imply social grandeur, and in any case, he wasn't necessarily correct. I had no access to the deliberations behind my 'regimental sponsorship'.

People without family connections might disagree.

Originally Posted by cpunk

I haven't seen any of this evidence yet, other than a claim about some dodgy sucker on a TV documentary.

See no evil hear no evil I suppose. I don't think the poor boke is a "dodgy sucker" - I've heard good things about him post-commissioning.

**cpunk** · 11-02-2012, 15:05

Originally Posted by Pyianno

People without family connections might disagree.

About what? The implication that family ties within regiments imply social grandeur? I'm not entirely sure what you mean: a recent Int Corps 2-star's father was a Warrant Officer in the Corps; doubtless that helped ease his way into the Corps but it has bugger all to do with social grandness...

See no evil hear no evil I suppose. I don't think the poor boke is a "dodgy sucker" - I've heard good things about him post-commissioning.

You claim to have evidence that social grandeur remains a selection criterion in the British Army: I would be interested to see it.