Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

Agreed, it strikes me though that the MOD is starting with the target candidate and working upwards from there though, as opposed to looking at the roles required and working back. It might be politically unpalatable but - do the armed forces need people of such a 'delicate' or temperamental disposition that the current advertising campaign was required to get them to sign on the line?
I agree, they are working back to front, but why? There is something bigger afoot here perhaps, maybe an entirely different kind of army - maybe a withdrawal from the last semblance of empire (to justify perhaps, a reduction in the aid budget in order to fund the NHS). Who knows. But to my mind, we need infantrymen, tankies, sappers, and medics who are tough as nuts. We need airborne artillery and the signals corp who can lend themselves to any environment. None of which is coming with a quiet room or an attached mentor at the end that counts. Whatever happened to the old saying, 'fight hard, train harder'. As for Muslims or any other religious group for that matter, it was never an issue back in the day and I dare say that then, as now in all probability, most of a guys colleagues, after taking the piss, would probably fight pretty hard to facilitate a colleague's right to practice whatever religion he please - I have no idea where they are digging this non issue up from. Black, White, Pink or Yellow, it never mattered. What mattered was the ethos, the regiment and the fact that we had faith in our abilities and faith in our colleagues - whether we liked them or not was never an issue, same unit, same experience and when the chips were down everyone mattered. What is/was wrong with that. Seems to me that the thing ain't broke and does not therefore need fixing.
 
The recruitment process is shocking, I'm currently trying to enlist and having no luck whatsoever! first I had no activation email for registration which is needed just to enter the portal to then fill out a generic questionnaire which is then meant to be reviewed within two working days which also wasn't. I then phoned the NRC which then told me I for some reason hadn't been assigned a CSM (still haven't) because I hadn't filled out an online medical which wasn't even showing as an option so after hassling about that it shew its face and from that point I couldn't even access it because it wont let you. Now i have phoned every day almost for two weeks to be told to "bare with because the system will be good its just got lots of bugs because its new" also it took me from mid Nov to the end of Dec to get activated on the portal. (it is meant to be an automatic email that comes out to activate baring in mind) if they don't sort it sharpish I will end up just binning it off because its getting mentally tiring.
While you are waiting, you could always nip over to the Fort de Nogent in Paris and try the Foreign Legion. It usually takes less than a month between rocking up through the gate and starting Basic at Castelnaudary, if you get accepted. If not you have still had free board and lodging and a ticket back to Paris. In six months time you could be on patrol in Mali!
 
...do the armed forces need people of such a 'delicate' or temperamental disposition that the current advertising campaign was required to get them to sign on the line?
Read Sydney Jary's "19 Platoon" (infantry Pl Comd memoir, of the fighting from D+3 or so, all the way to VE-Day - so very definitely qualified on the subject of dismounted close combat), specifically the parts where he discusses whether he wanted a platoon full of sporting hero types, or of thinkers and poets. And as pointed out earlier in this thread, regarding the American selective service setup in 1941-43, picking what you think should be the best people, doesn't necessarily give any better results.

So the relevant questions are:
  • Do the Armed Forces need enough people - yes.
  • Is it managing to get them by doing the same thing it's always done - no.
  • Should it carry on doing it the same old way, and wish really hard that things will change - no.
  • Does it have to change how it does things - yes.
Now I'm not going to defend the current campaign - but I'm not going to go for wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments just because the campaign is different from before. Again, as pointed out earlier by someone else, the bait has to be attractive to the fish, not the fisherman (brilliant quote, that)
 
While you are waiting, you could always nip over to the Fort de Nogent in Paris and try the Foreign Legion. It usually takes less than a month between rocking up through the gate and starting Basic at Castelnaudary, if you get accepted. If not you have still had free board and lodging and a ticket back to Paris. In six months time you could be on patrol in Mali!
Who'd want to do that though - you wear your berets the wrong way round! ;)
 
Read Sydney Jary's "19 Platoon" (infantry Pl Comd memoir, of the fighting from D+3 or so, all the way to VE-Day - so very definitely qualified on the subject of dismounted close combat), specifically the parts where he discusses whether he wanted a platoon full of sporting hero types, or of thinkers and poets. And as pointed out earlier in this thread, regarding the American selective service setup in 1941-43, picking what you think should be the best people, doesn't necessarily give any better results.

So the relevant questions are:
  • Do the Armed Forces need enough people - yes.
  • Is it managing to get them by doing the same thing it's always done - no.
  • Should it carry on doing it the same old way, and wish really hard that things will change - no.
  • Does it have to change how it does things - yes.
Now I'm not going to defend the current campaign - but I'm not going to go for wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments just because the campaign is different from before. Again, as pointed out earlier by someone else, the bait has to be attractive to the fish, not the fisherman (brilliant quote, that)
I do see your point. To use the fish analogy though - if you want to catch sharks, you don't use fish flakes. If you want to get a goldfish to do a shark's job then use fishflakes by all means..

Edit - and as has been highlighted by some involved in the current recruitment process on here - is it the PR that is fecked or the recruitment process? From what has been said so far it would appear the recruitment bit is what's broken. People applying and getting no confirmation email etc etc...

Could the MOD be barking up the wrong tree or...could it be a calculated move towards something politically attractive?
 
Except in the last (Belonging) campaign they apparently didn't pay actors, but used serving and retired soldiers to be ... serving and retired soldiers.

... and at an apparent 1.5 mill this is hardly far cheaper than ummm ... free.
In my experience, the production costs of a cartoon ad are about 10% of those of making a film with people whether you pay the actors or not.
 

oxoniensis

Clanker
Saw that earlier and nearly wrote a lengthy response, but decided it's not worth risking my career to go against the groupthink when there is zero chance of changing anything. It's a piss poor response from Jo though.
You're a better man than me; I bit like an angry ferret.
 

9370

Old-Salt
Agreed, it strikes me though that the MOD is starting with the target candidate and working upwards from there though, as opposed to looking at the roles required and working back. It might be politically unpalatable but - do the armed forces need people of such a 'delicate' or temperamental disposition that the current advertising campaign was required to get them to sign on the line?
They aren't asking for people of 'delicate or temperamental disposition', they are asking for normal people, who in reality reflect the composition of the forces as they are. It's the macho super killing machine, depicted in old style ads which is the myth, for the majority serving.
 
AGAI 40 Para 40.024/025. If an ACC doesn't have instant access to the document I would suggest the personnel within should be sacked on the spot :)
Thanks. Could you please post a link or screenshot as I haven't been able to find it via a normal search.

Edit: Because of the number of posts in this thread i'll repeat my initial enquiry which related to what I suspect was duff info from Salisbury careers office cira May 2016 in which they stated that dual national applicants born and living abroad holding BRITISH passports must reside in UK for 5 years before being able to join HMF. As a retired WO my suspicion remains that their answer related to Commonwealth applicants rather than dual nationals despite assurances to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts from a 'young person' who is currently in the process of attempting to join the army (if I may be so bold).

Firstly, the Army certainly has a image problem in my peer group. Most of my friends (i.e. middle-class university students for the most part) literary cannot fathom why anyone in my position would even think of joining up. The army as a career does not even enter their heads as a concept. Their view of the army tends to slide on a scale from a 'last resort' career for incompetents to a bunch of tired old right-wing 'Cold Warriors' who suck money out of the NHS (obviously not my opinion in either case). Nobody I know wants to join up. While I am not particularly impressed by the new Army adverts, at least it shows some sort of attempt by the Army to appeal to the sorts of people in my peer group (albeit in a fairly heavy-handed way).

Furthermore, on the point about a frustrating recruitment process putting people off, I can heartily agree. Stuck in the same rut for a month now due to a error on the recruitment system, and with interviews for (better-paying) civilian jobs coming up, I am significantly losing motivation - and I am somebody who has wanted to be a soldier since a young age.
I think the real problem is your peer group and friends ;-) ..I joined up straight from skool after 3 years in the ACF as I couldn't wait to get my hands on a free gun and bullets - didn't even know that you got paid! ha ha
 
As for Muslims or any other religious group for that matter, it was never an issue back in the day and I dare say that then, as now in all probability, most of a guys colleagues, after taking the piss, would probably fight pretty hard to facilitate a colleague's right to practice whatever religion he please - I have no idea where they are digging this non issue up from. Black, White, Pink or Yellow, it never mattered.
Really?

What f*cking army was you serving in 'back in the day' :)
 
I had much the same but only one interview followed by a couple of tests in the recruiting office. A trip for three days to a selection centre and one medical. This was late 79 when I was 15 1/2 so was given the certificate of vacancy but had to wait until I was 16.
yep, same here...get the cert 2 months before my 16th Birthday - had to wait another 8 months for the Platoon form up date...was in the ACF so just cracked on doing and learning more shite with them until the glorious day of walking through the gates of the Rifle Depot - To be greeted by the Gate man with a cheery 'You'll be sorreeee' ;-)
 
I think the real problem is your peer group and friends ;-) ..I joined up straight from skool after 3 years in the ACF as I couldn't wait to get my hands on a free gun and bullets - didn't even know that you got paid! ha ha
My bold - showing why you wouldn't have been the target audience for the advert even if you were 15-18.

Does show why expanding the ACF (maybe the CCF, but preferably the ACF ;) ) could be an example of long term thinking!
 
True...more's the pity as it can be argued that people like me may be the exact ********* that they actually fecking need to do the job.
The idea being that the ACF, whilst explicitly not 'recruiting' you would have given you an insight of some basic Army principles, a bit of the lifestyle etc... Other adverts would be aimed at your group to try and get you to turn that idea into an application.

Does show why expanding the ACF (maybe the CCF, but preferably the ACF ;) ) could be an example of long term thinking! (I just edited this into my original comment on it but I'll put it here :) )
 
The idea being that the ACF, whilst explicitly not 'recruiting' you would have given you an insight of some basic Army principles, a bit of the lifestyle etc... Other adverts would be aimed at your group to try and get you to turn that idea into an application.

Does show why expanding the ACF (maybe the CCF, but preferably the ACF ;) ) could be an example of long term thinking! (I just edited this into my original comment on it but I'll put it here :) )
Yep..go one further and pay Army Cadets - call it an 'allowance' if you will - at the same level of funding that is put into promoting LGBTABCXYZ and/or other youth gigs.
 
Yep..go one further and pay Army Cadets - call it an 'allowance' if you will - at the same level of funding that is put into promoting LGBTABCXYZ and/or other youth gigs.
Can’t pay them, crosses the line from them being a ‘voluntary charity organisation funded by the MOD’ and recruiting them (same reason they don’t get a service number)

Could fund them more so that training is free maybe? Or preferably just expand them and give them more facilities as well as a big uptake in adult/CFAV recruiting (or whatever the new acronym is) and maybe pay them more.
 

Latest Threads

Top