Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

@Condottiere On a serious note, how would all this be regarded were it to pertain to the Legion? Both in perception by those within, and without?
Refer to my previous posts: Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion and Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

All men who volunteer are treated the same way and have the same opportunities. These are based on assessed abilities, aptitude and performance. No special preferences are catered for. All recruits do everything together, they eat the same food, wear the same clothes, sing the same songs, follow the same rules, face the same restrictions, endure the same punishments and are subject to the same tests. The cohesive whole of the unit takes precedence over individuality. Belief is encouraged, the belief in the Legion and in the Legionnaire as a being whole-heartedly committed to the ethos, values and success of the Legion.

There is no such thing as an official Church Parade. France is a secular republic, which acknowledges that many of its citizens profess a faith. The Legion has Padres of various ilk and quite a few of the officers traditionally come from “ultra-Catholic” families; but Legion routine, duties and tasks have priority over the wish to express one’s faith. Nothing stops you from doing that in a quiet, private moment.

The point is that quiet, private moments tend not to exist in the first year of a Legionnaire’s contract and then they are few and far between until he is promoted to “Caporal-Chef” or “Sergent” and moves out of communal barrack-block accommodation.

One of the best platoon commanders and company sergeant majors that I have ever known was a Tunisian Muslim. I knew many other Muslim Legionnaires, some Jews, a smattering of various Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, etc. And of course a lot of the varied Christian denominations as well as a goodly few ungodly unbelievers. They all conformed to the Legion standard. That takes precedence. Oh, and everyone celebrates Christmas, but nobody is obliged to attend Midnight Mass, though turning up at your makeshift platoon bar (open for the twelve days of Chrimbo) after the obligatory Christmas Eve meal in each regiment, is a social obligation that you owe to your muckers.

The Legion takes unit cohesion extremely seriously. Excessive affirmation of individual preferences is regarded as detrimental to the object of having a well-honed fighting machine. A Legionnare is but a cog in that machine, dependent on the smooth functioning of all the other cogs around him. The first year of a Legionnaire’s contract conditions him to accept that. After that he is aware that he belongs to a family, that in return for his service will protect and support him throughout his career and beyond if necessary.

Terms and conditions of service are very good. Legionnaires are fed, watered, clothed and housed. They are not fleeced to pay for this. Medical and dental care is excellent. The French have not abolished military hospitals. Pay and leave are great (after the first year). Pension plans are well funded and there are many benefits for veterans. The social contract is upheld.

So, the reaction from serving Legionnaires to this recruiting campaign would likely encompass disbelief, sadness, amazement and ridicule. If something like this were to be forced on the Legion it would destroy it.
 
Last edited:
Refer to my previous posts: Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion and Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

All men who volunteer are treated the same way and have the same opportunities. These are based on assessed abilities, aptitude and performance. No special preferences are catered for. All recruits do everything together, they eat the same food, wear the same clothes, sing the same songs, follow the same rules, face the same restrictions, endure the same punishments and are subject to the same tests. The cohesive whole of the unit takes precedence over individuality. Belief is encouraged, the belief in the Legion and in the Legionnaire as a being whole-heartedly committed to the ethos, values and success of the Legion.

There is no such thing as an official Church Parade. France is secular Republic, which acknowledges that many of its citizens profess a faith. The Legion has Padres of various ilk and quite a few of the officers traditionally come from “ultra-Catholic” families; but Legion routine, duties and tasks have priority over the wish to express ones faith. Nothing stops you from doing that in a quiet, private moment.

The point is that quiet, private moments tend not to exist in the first year of a Legionnaire’s contract and then are few and far between until he is promoted to “Caporal-Chef” or “Sergent”.

One of the best platoon commanders and company sergeant majors that I have ever known was a Tunisian Muslim. I knew many other Muslim Legionnaires, some Jews, a smattering of various Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, etc. And of course a lot of the varied Christian denominations as well as a goodly few ungodly unbelievers. They all conformed to the Legion standard. That takes precedence. Oh, and everyone celebrates Christmas, but nobody is obliged to attend Midnight Mass, but turning up at your makeshift platoon bar (open for the twelve days of Chrimbo) after the obligatory Christmas Eve (by company) meal is a social obligation that you owe to your muckers.

The Legion takes unit cohesion extremely seriously. Excessive affirmation of individual preferences is regarded as detrimental to the object of having a well-honed fighting machine. A Legionnare is but a cog in that machine, dependent on the smooth functioning of all the other cogs around him. The first year of a Legionnaire’s contract conditions him to accept that. After that he is aware that he belongs to a family that in return for his service will protect and support him throughout his career and beyond if necessary.

Terms and conditions of service are very good. Legionnaires are fed, watered, clothed and housed. They are not fleeced to pay for this. Medical and dental care is excellent. The French have not abolished military hospitals. Pay and leave are great (after the first year). Pension plans are well funded and there are many benefits for veterans. The social contract is upheld.

So, the reaction from serving Legionnaires to this recruiting campaign would likely encompass disbelief, sadness, amazement and ridicule. If something like this were to be forced on the Legion it would destroy it.
Without being glib, the British Army is not the Legion.

Nor should it be.
 
Without being glib, the British Army is not the Legion. Nor should it be.
Totally agree. I didn’t say that it was, I was just replying to the question I was asked. However the Legion is comprised of combat units as are some parts of the British Army. And just perhaps, the MoD might learn something from the holistic French approach to the military covenant.
 
Totally agree. I didn’t say that it was, I was just replying to the question I was asked. However the Legion is comprised of combat units as are some parts of the British Army. And just perhaps, the MoD might learn something from the holistic French approach to the military covenant.
Now there's a chilling thought the Frogs showing John Bull how to run it's army, a very real possibility in the not to distant future;)
 
I hear that a complaint, about the ad showing the Muslim soldier interrupting a patrol to pray, is shortly to be submitted to the Advertising Standards Authority. The complaint will ask the ASA to confirm with the MOD whether their promise that Muslims signing up for the Army can pray "whenever necessary" is not misleading, and that this promise will be honoured as necessary. If they cannot confirm this the ad may have to be withdrawn or caveated.
Well, many moons ago there was a sparky Officer Cadet who oped to have as his Religion identified as 'Sun Worshipper' which was duly noted by the Platoon C/Sgt. It was his attempt at getting out of Church Parades.
So on Sunday the cadet was rifted by both the Platoon C/Sgt and Company CSM onto the grass by New College where he was told to adopt the position, and then in full view he was told to worship his God. This was well before the other traditionally aligned cadets were woken for Church Parade - needless to say he found a new faith - C of E!
 
Now there's a chilling thought the Frogs showing John Bull how to run it's army, a very real possibility in the not to distant future;)
It appears that the UK is slowly returning to its historical default option of having a very small standing Army. The French on the other hand are likely to retain a much larger one. If current trends of Government spending continue and if you add quite realistic prognoses of the Brexit effect on both the economy of the UK and the potential catalytic push towards its possible dissolution, we may end up with a New (scale) Model (English) Army and a French Army with Scottish and Irish Regiments in its OOB again! Plus ca change......., as they say in, er........ French. ;-)
 
Last edited:
My real problem with this whole thing is why has some much effort gone towards targeting, such a small percentage of the population? The 2011 Census shows that Muslims make up less than 5% of the UK population, and will be not different to any other ethnicity’s in that an equal amount will go on to higher education. The LGBT numbers seem to be between 1.8 *and 3 % of the population (The 3% comes from a state by state break down of the US on Wiki). Again LGBT kids will be just as likely to go into higher education. Diversity has just become the latest set of Emperor’s New Clothes, and the CGS has become so disjointed from reality, and his own troops, that he has failed to notice the Emperor ,who’s tackle he is admiring, is in fact His Purple Eminence.



*This is for the general population, not the BBC
 
Last edited:
It appears that the UK is slowly returning to its historical default option of having a very small standing Army. The French on the other hand are likely to retain a much larger one. If current trends of Government spending continue and if you add quite realistic prognoses of the Brexit effect on both the economy of the UK and the potential catalytic push towards its possible dissolution, we may end up with a New (scale) Model (English) Army and a French Army with Scottish and Irish Regiments in its OOB again! Plus ca change......., as they say in er........ French. ;-)
It's all gone Pete Tong i tell ye :confused:
 
@benjaminw1 and @John G, instead of just accusing me of "pandering to minorities", and giving a disagree/dislike, how about you actually give an explanation for your views. I don't normally care whether people like my comments or not, but I've never been in the habit of pandering to anybody.
 
I'll bet there are people of all faiths and nationalities who have said a prayer in combat - especially when things are going tits up. Might not have got the prayer mat, holy books, rosaries and St Christophers out, but I bet they still managed to get a prayer off to the Big Man Upstairs to get them out of this shit.
 
Refer to my previous posts: Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion and Army Recruitment and Popular Opinion

All men who volunteer are treated the same way and have the same opportunities. These are based on assessed abilities, aptitude and performance. No special preferences are catered for. All recruits do everything together, they eat the same food, wear the same clothes, sing the same songs, follow the same rules, face the same restrictions, endure the same punishments and are subject to the same tests. The cohesive whole of the unit takes precedence over individuality. Belief is encouraged, the belief in the Legion and in the Legionnaire as a being whole-heartedly committed to the ethos, values and success of the Legion.

There is no such thing as an official Church Parade. France is secular republic, which acknowledges that many of its citizens profess a faith. The Legion has Padres of various ilk and quite a few of the officers traditionally come from “ultra-Catholic” families; but Legion routine, duties and tasks have priority over the wish to express ones faith. Nothing stops you from doing that in a quiet, private moment.

The point is that quiet, private moments tend not to exist in the first year of a Legionnaire’s contract and then are few and far between until he is promoted to “Caporal-Chef” or “Sergent” and moves out of communal barrack-block accommodation.

One of the best platoon commanders and company sergeant majors that I have ever known was a Tunisian Muslim. I knew many other Muslim Legionnaires, some Jews, a smattering of various Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, etc. And of course a lot of the varied Christian denominations as well as a goodly few ungodly unbelievers. They all conformed to the Legion standard. That takes precedence. Oh, and everyone celebrates Christmas, but nobody is obliged to attend Midnight Mass, but turning up at your makeshift platoon bar (open for the twelve days of Chrimbo) after the obligatory Christmas Eve (by company) meal is a social obligation that you owe to your muckers.

The Legion takes unit cohesion extremely seriously. Excessive affirmation of individual preferences is regarded as detrimental to the object of having a well-honed fighting machine. A Legionnare is but a cog in that machine, dependent on the smooth functioning of all the other cogs around him. The first year of a Legionnaire’s contract conditions him to accept that. After that he is aware that he belongs to a family that in return for his service will protect and support him throughout his career and beyond if necessary.

Terms and conditions of service are very good. Legionnaires are fed, watered, clothed and housed. They are not fleeced to pay for this. Medical and dental care is excellent. The French have not abolished military hospitals. Pay and leave are great (after the first year). Pension plans are well funded and there are many benefits for veterans. The social contract is upheld.

So, the reaction from serving Legionnaires to this recruiting campaign would likely encompass disbelief, sadness, amazement and ridicule. If something like this were to be forced on the Legion it would destroy it.
Another excellent post that details your subject knowledge mon'ami, & although no one would expect it to be the same in HMF's the basic premise applies. It's not about the individual it's about the collective, leave your individualism at the door if it will stop or hinder you joining the group effort.

Anyone got an update on this story ?

First UK female front line soldier used to be called Ben - transgender Chloe makes history
 
Another excellent post that details your subject knowledge mon'ami, & although no one would expect it to be the same in HMF's the basic premise applies. It's not about the individual it's about the collective, leave your individualism at the door...
You've got to get them through the door first.
 
Very good point & at the core of the debate, however joining the armed forces is what it is & to misinform minority groups that the collective will bow to few is an accident waiting to happen.

Isn't that what basic training is for? To weed out the unsuitable ones?
 
Very good point & at the core of the debate, however joining the armed forces is what it is & to misinform minority groups that the collective will bow to few is an accident waiting to happen.
Bollocks, I’m part of the majority and I believed I would be wandering on a desert island beach with a fit chick...at the same time. Lying to get people in is nothing new.
 
Seriously, if HMG wants a competent, balanced, effective and fit for purpose armed forces it needs to define what the purpose is and all of the subsidiary tasks and component parts and then fund their manning and equipment adequately. If the sums don't add up, then something has to give.

If one puts aside the purpose and equipment parts for the moment and considers personnel, it doesn't really matter what the other parts of the equation are or the numbers, whatever is decided there need to be certain things that are guaranteed.

Serving as a member of the armed forces needs to be acknowledged as not just another job.
The clue is in the wording of the sentence above - it is "service". It is different from "employment" or "work". It entails considerably more demands on the person than what is expected from a civilian.
This service and the potential sacrifices it entails needs to be properly defined to the potential recruit.
The terms and conditions of this service must adequately reflect the service and reward it.
The rewards cannot be solely financial but must be in the form of a social contract between the server and the served (in this case HMG).

The service person needs to feel valued and appreciated. If the organisation to which he belongs treats him just like any person in any other job, the underlying impression will be that they are being conned. In addition the service person needs to know that a certain task-relevant standard is required and that everyone must meet that standard. Some people will not be able to make it. The standard must not be lowered for them as they will not be as effective as the others that do make it. In turn when pressure is applied, it is they that are more likely to fail and thus contribute to weakening the overall organisation that they belong to. Each member of the organisation must be able to have absolute certainty that the others are just as capable as themselves. If they cannot have that certainty, trust in the organisation is eroded.

Each service person needs to know that in the organisation they belong to, their self-worth is enhanced by being a close part of the collective and that the unit they belong to is in effect what it is called - a unit, not a collection of individuals with their own interests at heart.

In the U.K. over the last thirty years or so the following has been eroded away:
The ability to recognise that the armed forces are not just another job;
The fact that service personnel should be treated differently to civilians;
The acknowledgement that they need an adequate supportive network dedicated solely to them;
That service personnel are required to suppress certain perceived rights and individual attributes for the good of the collective whole and the proper functioning of the organisation;
The recognition that to compensate for the extra onus that is put on them and the extra sacrifices that are expected from them, in addition to competitive salaries, they need their direct perks and subsidies, indirect concessions and benefits that make the collective life of a service person more rewarding.

This accumulative erosion has in turn eroded the social contract between the State and the personnel in its armed forces. This is eminently visible to the sort of people that would otherwise be willing to accept the onus of service life and be willing to make the sacrifices that it entails. These sort of people are not reflective of society, they never will be. What they will be is exceptional service personnel who will loyally serve and do their duty in a way no civilian can comprehend.

You cannot have effective armed forces if you do not understand what it takes to make motivated, dedicated, effective armed forces SERVICE personnel.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, if HMG wants a competent, balanced, effective and fit for purpose armed forces it needs to define what the purpose is and all of the subsidiary tasks and component parts and then fund their manning and equpment adequately. If the sums don't add up, then something has to give.

If one puts aside the purpose and equipment parts for the moment and considers personnel, it doesn't really matter what the other parts of the equation are or the numbers, whatever is decided there need to be certain things that are guaranteed.

Serving as a member of the armed forces needs to be acknowledged as not just another job.
The clue is in the wording of the sentence above - it is "service". It is different from "employment" or "work". It entails considerably more demands on the person than what is expected from a civilian.
This service and the potential sacrifices it entails needs to be properly defined to the potential recruit.
The terms and conditions of this service must adequately reflect the service and reward it.
The rewards cannot be solely financial but must be in the form of a social contract between the server and the served (in this case HMG).

The service person needs to feel valued and appreciated. If the organisation to which he belongs treats him just like any person in any other job, the underlying impression will be that they are being conned. In addition the service person needs to know that a certain task-relevant standard is required and that everyone must meet that standard. Some people will not be able to make it. The standard must not be lowered for them as they will not be as effective as the others that do make it. In turn when pressure is applied, it is they that are more likely to fail and thus contribute to weakening the overall organisation that they belong to. Each member of the organisation must be able to have absolute certainty that the others are just as capable as themselves. If they cannot have that certainty, trust in the organisation is eroded.

Each service person needs to know that in the organisation they belong to, their self-worth is enhanced by being a close part of the collective and that the unit they belong to is in effect what it is called - a unit, not a collection of individuals with their own interests at heart.

In the U.K. over the last thirty years or so the following has been eroded away:
The ability to recognise that the armed forces are not just another job;
The fact that service personnel should be treated differently to civilians;
The acknowledgement that they need an adequate supportive network dedicated solely to them;
That service personnel are required to suppress certain perceived rights and individual attributes for the good of the collective whole and the proper functioning of the organisation;
The recognition that to compensate for the extra onus that is put on them and the extra sacrifices that are expected from them, in addition to competitive salaries, they need their direct perks and subsidies, indirect concessions and benefits that make the collective life of a service person more rewarding.

This accumulative erosion has in turn this has eroded the social contract between the State and the personnel in its armed forces. This is eminently visible to the sort of people that would otherwise be willing to accept the onus of service life and be willing to make the sacrifices that it entails. These sort of people are not reflective of society, they never will be. What they will be is exceptional service personnel who will loyally serve and do their duty in a way no civilian can comprehend.

You cannot have effective armed forces if you do not understand what it takes to make motivated, dedicated, effective armed forces SERVICE personnel.
Having a motivated effective armed forces doesn’t win votes.
 
Isn't that what basic training is for? To weed out the unsuitable ones?
Unsuitable ones should be weeded out at an intensive and extensive, physical, medical, emotional, psychological and cognitive selection process prior to acceptance for basic training which can also provide a good baseline of the individual's trade aptitude spectrum and potential for advancement. The whole selection process has to be based on the practical needs of the organisation being selected for, not on externally imposed criteria which serve ulterior motives. Hmmm, now where have I seen that before?
 
Last edited:
Seriously, if HMG wants a competent, balanced, effective and fit for purpose armed forces it needs to define what the purpose is and all of the subsidiary tasks and component parts and then fund their manning and equpment adequately. If the sums don't add up, then something has to give.

If one puts aside the purpose and equipment parts for the moment and considers personnel, it doesn't really matter what the other parts of the equation are or the numbers, whatever is decided there need to be certain things that are guaranteed.

Serving as a member of the armed forces needs to be acknowledged as not just another job.
The clue is in the wording of the sentence above - it is "service". It is different from "employment" or "work". It entails considerably more demands on the person than what is expected from a civilian.
This service and the potential sacrifices it entails needs to be properly defined to the potential recruit.
The terms and conditions of this service must adequately reflect the service and reward it.
The rewards cannot be solely financial but must be in the form of a social contract between the server and the served (in this case HMG).

The service person needs to feel valued and appreciated. If the organisation to which he belongs treats him just like any person in any other job, the underlying impression will be that they are being conned. In addition the service person needs to know that a certain task-relevant standard is required and that everyone must meet that standard. Some people will not be able to make it. The standard must not be lowered for them as they will not be as effective as the others that do make it. In turn when pressure is applied, it is they that are more likely to fail and thus contribute to weakening the overall organisation that they belong to. Each member of the organisation must be able to have absolute certainty that the others are just as capable as themselves. If they cannot have that certainty, trust in the organisation is eroded.

Each service person needs to know that in the organisation they belong to, their self-worth is enhanced by being a close part of the collective and that the unit they belong to is in effect what it is called - a unit, not a collection of individuals with their own interests at heart.

In the U.K. over the last thirty years or so the following has been eroded away:
The ability to recognise that the armed forces are not just another job;
The fact that service personnel should be treated differently to civilians;
The acknowledgement that they need an adequate supportive network dedicated solely to them;
That service personnel are required to suppress certain perceived rights and individual attributes for the good of the collective whole and the proper functioning of the organisation;
The recognition that to compensate for the extra onus that is put on them and the extra sacrifices that are expected from them, in addition to competitive salaries, they need their direct perks and subsidies, indirect concessions and benefits that make the collective life of a service person more rewarding.

This accumulative erosion has in turn this has eroded the social contract between the State and the personnel in its armed forces. This is eminently visible to the sort of people that would otherwise be willing to accept the onus of service life and be willing to make the sacrifices that it entails. These sort of people are not reflective of society, they never will be. What they will be is exceptional service personnel who will loyally serve and do their duty in a way no civilian can comprehend.

You cannot have effective armed forces if you do not understand what it takes to make motivated, dedicated, effective armed forces SERVICE personnel.
What a truly excellent post. I have rarely seen the Service vs Social Contract so well explained. I wish that our MPs bought into it as much as they do into falling over themselves to praise NHS and teaching personnel. Obviously, they do deserve praise, but they have not given up so much of their freedoms to protect that same freedom.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top