Army Numbers Fall Again

Wrong side or not how do Muslim suffer from mental health issues when praying is supposed to be good for the mind?
No-one said it's good for the mind. It can be helpful. It's not a magic pill. And of course, distorted and taken to extreme, religion can border on psychosis, hearing voices, schyzophrenia. But that is the same with most things, helpful in moderation, not great when taken to excess.
 
No-one said it's good for the mind. It can be helpful. It's not a magic pill. And of course, distorted and taken to extreme, religion can border on psychosis, hearing voices, schyzophrenia. But that is the same with most things, helpful in moderation, not great when taken to excess.
Ahh gotcha, I understand now, when it works its great when it doesnt well thats because it wasnt in moderation.
What a great get out clause.
 
So it doesnt actually mean thou shall not kill?
For at least the fourth time, not as you interpret it, no.

The Catholic church couldn't be clearer on how it applies, in their view, to defence, abortion, euthanasia, punishment, etc.
No, for at least the third or fourth time, the "sub clauses" are already there in the Catechism so automatically and unavoidably included.
You are suggesting that if he wasnt religious he wouldnt have thought of that?
No, again for at least the third or fourth time, I'm stating categorically that in my view if he "wasn't religious" he may well have come up with the same solution sitting on the crapper, after a brew, or in many other ways but, however much it may not fit your agenda the fact (and I do mean fact) remains that he was / is religious and that's what worked FOR HIM.
Best we make religion compulsory it clearly helps you make military decisions.

Right... so if he lost it was something other than praying if he won it was down to praying, what a ******* cop out.

The army certainly realised the dangers of over promotion with you, that why you were shunted off out of your parent unit.
No, religion helps SOME people make military decisions, as does sitting on the crapper, having a brew, etc. help others.

Some, sadly for the Army, are clearly beyond help.

Agreed. There are limits to how many times even I can be bothered to keep on repeating myself.
 
Well the same can be said for food, drink, exercise, sex ...........
Never really thought any of them were necessary before a possible battle.
 
For at least the fourth time, not as you interpret it, no.

The Catholic church couldn't be clearer on how it applies, in their view, to defence, abortion, euthanasia, punishment, etc.
No, for at least the third or fourth time, the "sub clauses" are already there in the Catechism so automatically and unavoidably included.
No, again for at least the third or fourth time, I'm stating categorically that in my view if he "wasn't religious" he may well have come up with the same solution sitting on the crapper, after a brew, or in many other ways but, however much it may not fit your agenda the fact (and I do mean fact) remains that he was / is religious and that's what worked FOR HIM.
No, religion helps SOME people make military decisions, as does sitting on the crapper, having a brew, etc. help others.

Some, sadly for the Army, are clearly beyond help.

Agreed. There are limits to how many times even I can be bothered to keep on repeating myself.
Did the Pope say thou shall not kill and then go onto all the sub clauses? Whats their stance on collateral damage for example?

What you are stating is, his religion played no part then? It was his military training.
 
May I just say, applicants isn't the problem, it's the conversion rates from initial application to starting training that is the issue, for a number of reasons.
I believe some rag has recently reported that we have plenty of applications. How very May 2017 ^~
 
I believe some rag has recently reported that we have plenty of applications. How very May 2017 ^~
The Sun, apparently. They, too, seem unable to differentiate between an initial enquiry and a full application as the other services and many at the MoD (including the key figures) see and categorise it. If the Army (and you and the Sun) were to use the same criteria as everyone else it may give such claims rather more credibility.
 
Last edited:
There is no need to pray, it just what gullible people do.

Having a quick pray will make **** all difference in a fire fight, you will either be hit by a bullet or not, you will either kill the enemy or not, you will succeed or fail. Your prayers will do **** all. People on either side can pray but generally only one is going to win. You can pray and fight atheists who could win.

The reason the army has problems with Muslims making up their own rules is partly because of people like you who think Christians should be afforded the same privileges.
I think you may be verging on the incorrect here. Praying has been found to have an effect on the one who prays. A testable effect. If it calms someone in a firefight, for example, they might shoot more accurately.

On the other hand, praying will have no effect on other people's accuracy, or indeed anything outside of the person praying.
 
I think you may be verging on the incorrect here. Praying has been found to have an effect on the one who prays. A testable effect. If it calms someone in a firefight, for example, they might shoot more accurately.

On the other hand, praying will have no effect on other people's accuracy, or indeed anything outside of the person praying.
Whereas the firer would likely feel no need to pray, if - like my Great Grandad's generation of Regular soldiers - he'd been properly trained in the use of his personal weapon from the get-go :)

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition, an' that.
 
The Sun, apparently. They, too, seem unable to differentiate between an initial enquiry.
Are they even initial enquiries John? I think anyone in the marketing game would consider the 100k+ “applications” to be no more than unqualified leads.

If you defined an enquiry to be someone who actually engages beyond just providing basic email and phone details, I’d bet that enquiries are significantly less than what is being quoted as “applications”.

When you think about it, 100k leads is pretty pathetic given the Army’s recruiting spend. At best it’s smoke and mirrors, at worst it’s higjly misleading.
 
Are they even initial enquiries John? I think anyone in the marketing game would consider the 100k+ “applications” to be no more than unqualified leads.

If you defined an enquiry to be someone who actually engages beyond just providing basic email and phone details, I’d bet that enquiries are significantly less than what is being quoted as “applications”.

When you think about it, 100k leads is pretty pathetic given the Army’s recruiting spend. At best it’s smoke and mirrors, at worst it’s higjly misleading.
I really don't know how to put this any clearer.

Applications are registered at the point of application. When an individual completes a set of questions and presses apply (registration was pre application) on their electronic device.

The process has changed slightly from TRHJ to DRS but the application is just that. The figures are published on GOV.UK and as of October 17 they were 66913.

It really isn't difficult :)
 
Applications are registered at the point of application. When an individual completes a set of questions and presses apply (registration was pre application) on their electronic device.
So one stage on from a prospect; there’s probably been a single engagement. Still an unqualified lead, hooked by a lead magnet to give some basic details so the tripwire has been triggered. All it really constitutes is a weak expression of interest.

Completing a basic information form is a long way short of what anyone rational would describe as an application and there
aren’t many organisations recruiting large numbers that would shout about an unqualified lead being an allocation.

The sad thing is that people regard that as a success. Like the MoD spokesman quote in the press this weekend saying that interest in joint the Army is high.



It really isn’t that difficult
 
So one stage on from a prospect; there’s probably been a single engagement. Still an unqualified lead, hooked by a lead magnet to give some basic details so the tripwire has been triggered. All it really constitutes is a weak expression of interest.

Completing a basic information form is a long way short of what anyone rational would describe as an application and there
aren’t many organisations recruiting large numbers that would shout about an unqualified lead being an allocation.

The sad thing is that people regard that as a success. Like the MoD spokesman quote in the press this weekend saying that interest in joint the Army is high.



It really isn’t that difficult
Sums it up really ^~
 
Are they even initial enquiries John? I think anyone in the marketing game would consider the 100k+ “applications” to be no more than unqualified leads.

If you defined an enquiry to be someone who actually engages beyond just providing basic email and phone details, I’d bet that enquiries are significantly less than what is being quoted as “applications”.

When you think about it, 100k leads is pretty pathetic given the Army’s recruiting spend. At best it’s smoke and mirrors, at worst it’s higjly misleading.
@bob, I couldn't agree with you more - I was simply trying to avoid the inevitable squealing from @CAARPS that these really are genuine 'applications' and the only problem is turning these genuine 'applications' into genuine feet through the ACC door.

Technically, of course, he's 100% correct - that's how the Army counts and what the Army calls 'applications' even if nobody else does, and I do mean nobody else be they the other Services, many of the MoD, Min and Secs of Def, etc, etc, or any other reasonably comparable businesses.

@CAARPS link spells it out very clearly, as have previous similar monthly and quarterly Statistical Reports (my bold):

Due to differences in the application process for each Service, the three Services do not currently adopt the same definition of an ‘application’. Therefore, application numbers cannot be added together across the Services to show total Armed Forces applications (hence separate tables and graphs are provided).
The number of applications received does not directly relate to intake figures, since: Figures relate to the number of applications received and not the number of applicants, as one applicant may submit several applications;...
.....

  • Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking).

I'd suggest that it's not just "highly misleading" but that it's very difficult to see how it can be anything but deliberately misleading - as you and I debated rather heatedly before these figures should all be readily and easily available, particularly to a former Min of State for Def tasked with finding out why recruiting was so poor, but they're not. Really, they're not! Nobody knows how many made it through the door, why so many (at an educated guess around 75%) didn't, or how many were rejected or why. I know it seems unbelievable, particularly to anyone who was previously involved in gathering that information as you were, but that's all too clearly the position.

So one stage on from a prospect
No, @Bob, that's the only point where I disagree with you. These aren't "one stage on from a prospect" but, again according to the link @CAARPS gave, many of these aren't even "prospects" (again, my bold):

Applications that do not result in intake
The main causes of applicant failure (i.e. no offer to join the Services given) include:
  • Failing security clearance;
  • Not having the required residency;
  • Not achieving the required recruiting test score for the desired branch/trade;
  • Failing the medical scrutiny;
  • Not achieving fitness entry standards;
  • Applicants withdraw for their own reasons (e.g. change of mind) during the process
The main causes of application failure (i.e. the applicant declines an offer to join):
  • Applicants may have submitted other applications for employment (including multiple applications to join the Armed Forces) and accept another offer;
  • Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking).
Making these "applications" even less like "prospects" (and more like your "smoke and mirrors" at best if not my "deliberately misleading" at worst) is the issue of Commonwealth applicants for the 200 specialist vacancies per year exempt any residency requirement, which again @CAARPS' link details (again, my bold):

There has been a large increase in the number of applications to join the Army Regular Forces in the last
three quarters. The increase is, in part, due to a rise in Commonwealth applicants as a result of the
announcement that residency requirements would be waived to allow 200 Commonwealth citizens per
annum to be recruited to fill a limited number of roles in the Regular Armed Forces which require

specialist skills. In addition to this, the introduction of the Army Quick application process (‘Quick App’) in
November 2016 may have resulted in increases in applications following this period. Since the same
period last year, there has been an overall increase of 27,990 applications to join the Regular Army.


All applicants for these 200 places are included in the figures, even though there is absolutely zero "prospect" of the vast majority of them being enlisted as all the 200 vacancies have already been filled for the year and many will never have even been to the UK at all and just be applying 'on spec' from their own country.

I recall it being suggested that there were "thousands" of Commonwealth applicants for each of these vacancies. If correct that would mean at least 200,000 of these 66,913 "applications" were by Commonwealth applicants without the normal required residency qualification, of whom 99.9% had no "prospect" of actually joining, putting the number of "prospects" in negative territory.

Personally I think that's probably a wild exaggeration and the real figure is probably closer to that given by @CAARPS elsewhere ("We have circa 100 comenwealth applicants for each available post"), but that's still around 19,800 with absolutely no prospect of joining, so that's 30% of those 66,913"applications" straight in the bin. That's hardly a good start in terms of "prospects" before you add in those who, again according to @CAARPS' link, have made "multiple applications" or those who have made "Applications ...with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking)."


It really isn't difficult (or shouldn't be) to count the number of applicants at the same point as everyone else in the Armed Forces and to only include genuine "prospects" ... but the Army seems curiously reluctant to do so.


 
@John G i look at this from a

I think the measure known as “Applications” is made at an import stage in the process; it measures the success of otherwise the Awareness stage of the recruiting campaign. No more. I think it’s deliberately misleading in calling it Applications for two reasons. Firstly, calling an unqualified lead an Apllication is misleading for the reasons you state. But also by banding around a big headline number without any context, it’s pretty meaningless. Those leads arise from a a campaign or a seri s if campaigns. What were the objectives in terms of time, cost and quality? Were they met?

It’s a classic example of lack of accountability. Not a lot different from the routine “we’re making progress” reports the MoD came up with from Herrick.

For me, the recruiting game is one in which it is quite easy to set clear objectives and measure them. Whether it happens inside the organisation I don’t know. But the fact that the senior leadership spouts a meaningless number under a misleading title suggests a lack of accountability.
 
that the senior leadership spouts a meaningless number under a misleading title suggests a lack of accountability.
Suggests?

You are way too forgiving.

These are people who have risen to seniority by dint of skirting their essential responsibilities, and hedging omission behind flimflam like this.

I'd go so far as to say they are probably entirely unaware of being wholly deceitful.

Yet there's no mechanism - no OFSTED, no GMC, no watchdog of any stripe - to critique their performance.

It's a surefire recipe for institutional decline.
 

Latest Threads

Top