Are IS Ops a bunch of whinging girlies?

There seems to be a lot of moaning fools on this site intent on putting their own trade group into disrepute. :evil: There could be a time soon when the trade stucture for the IS Op might change. We could see the introduction of a Class III tradesman or woman very shortly. Do you think we are giving these potential/future IS Ops the right foundation? when all they see, is us whinging and moaning about how bad our training and structure is. 8)

We should be thinking about the future of the tade and the Corps, and by so doing ensure that future IS Ops have a clear career path from Sig - WO1 and through to Commissioning if they are good enough. 8O :idea:
I have a friend who has a mate, who unfortunately has no opinion what so ever on this topic, lucky for you that I do. Reading through this site at some of the comments from whom, I can only assume are IS Operators, I would have to concur with you that on first appearance we do seem to be girly wingers, yes I am an IS Operator and hopefully doing my part towards dispelling the current geek/winger/wimp/resettlement course image that seems to accompany the trade.

My mate reckons that if you are hoping to dispel the opinion that IS Ops are a bunch of self pitying, whinging girlies, you've got your work cut out.

Give it at least another 5 years. But I wish you luck!!
I have a't really substantiate that really....

To be honest I have to agree to an extent that we have quite a few whingeing t0553rs on the roster. I think that it's been cos the IS (and previously ADP) roster was very much a bolt-on (no jokes about strap-ons pse). As a consequence, there was often the undertone from many that there were (and perhaps still are) an awful lot of failed Yeomen and Foremen. Lo and behold a few bitter, disillusioned Supvr IS who ended up as Warrant Officers anyway.

Hopefully as the more senior guys leave the roster will pick itself up. And the fact that we've had a few commissioned Tfc IS now will give a wee bit of confidence that there is a potential career like the FofS -> TOT and YofS - Tfc Offr.

One point I want to raise is the Supvr IS course. I can't really complain - if I do it and get £10k then that's a bl00dy bargain, but it makes us look like a bunch of bluffers amongst our operator and tech counterparts.

What things do you guys and girls think Supvr IS should be taught/tested at Blandford to pad out the 9 wks. I think a week of IT Sy Offr, some procurement and a week of PRINCE2 at least. At the very least we should have to have some pre-course requirements apart from "at least one leg".

Answers on a postcard! :!:
You have to admit that there are many good IS Ops in the corps. We have to ensure that the correct training is given to facilitate the progression of class 3 to Supvr IS. There will be a time soon - and it can come soon enough - when all the old ADP Spec are gone and the trade is left to the real IS Ops.
Agree with you there PDwarf, there is absolutely no reason why a pot IS Sup should not get himself loaded on an ITSO course or maybe some Shrivenham courses ( maybe even push the boat out and do some self study) as a pre-requisit for getting on the selection course. It is up to the individual if he/she wants to progress in the trade to put some effort into learning things for the bigger picture. If they cant be bothered then they really are in the wrong trade, people who just coast along thinking that they are sorting themselves for civvy street are sadly mistaken. The only way that they will manage that is with experience and self education. :idea:

Prince2 would be an excellant idea but would it really happen. Also a good qualification to have but useless without experience so at least people would not be leaving of the back of it.
mmmm, Ive met some IS Ops I would'nt mind eating too, but thats not what ya meant is it disney??, bet you can't eat this IS Op (well not all at once anyway)
What did they promise you Lied2? Did they say you could sleep in for as long as you like and there is no more PT, did they promise that you didn't need to be good at your job to be promoted? Actually I'm not even a little curious please don’t tell me it might make me cry.
#16 we see yet another fine display of ignorance, although this time from Liberty. Perhaps it would be advisable for this individual to carry out a little research and find out what you are. Having said that, what are you doing supporting the IS Ops?? :lol:

I was unaware that it was customary to carry out research on what people are (By which I assume you mean which CEQ they are in) I was shocked to find that you think of me as ignorant, and am willing to rectify the matter immediately. With that in mind if you could direct me to the publication/site/pamphlet that equates nicknames to CEQ’s that would be fantastic, and I can assure you that this error will never happen again
It is however nice of you to stick up for Lied2, I can sympathise with the way you feel, it quite often used to affect me if someone made a remark about my partner.


Lib, I recommend a course of ground bats wings and frogs spit, that should cure your problem of CEQ to nickname resoloution.

Basics tut tut.
WFB me old mate having watched your contributions on the Blandford 3 string seems to me you've cornered the market in ignorance.......

People in glass houses........ :roll:
I can assure you that in true Bleep tradition I am not only ignorant but also incompetent, bias, sexist, lacking in integrity and moral courage, and an habitual liar.....Who am I to break Corps tradition? :lol:

Similar threads

Latest Threads