Brigadier Andrew Jackson writes about recruitment [Guardian]

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mintymcginty, Mar 29, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Brig Jackson has laid himself open to exactly the sort of comments which follow that article by a protracted piece of waffle in the first half of it: "Just come out and say you want to recruit", for instance, which is perfectly reasonable comment (contrasting with some of the more psychedelic later on...).
    Schools and universities are a recruiting ground. They may well be locations in which the pupil/student has his 'awareness' raised, but this is a euphemism for the first stage of recruitment (and one which borders on mendacity). At least he chose the Grauniad rather than the Telegraph for this piece, but I doubt that he'll convert many of the comrades.

    Edit: In the article by Minty in the same paper he says:
    Consistency, please. Paddling around in the language of the spindoctors is a dodgy game. Say what you mean, it's less tedious all round in the end.
     
  2. There is more to it than recruiting though, if you can install a feeling that the Armed Forces are good and valued at an early age then this will carry on into later life. All big institutions do it, get 'em on side whilst young and they will value the brand for life. Whilst they may or may not join, more of the public will know what we do. That has to be good.
     
  3. In the opening lines of his piece, the bloke says "we are in schools to raise awareness of the armed forces, not to recruit"

    Bullshit-o-meter just went through the roof and this person has lost all credulbility.

    Stick to soldiering sir and leave the writing to the experts.
     
  4. I am afraid that this is a vainglorious effort on the part of the MOD. Once you start debating defence issues with the average Guardianista it usually becomes a case of answering that old question "When did you stop beating your wife?".
     
  5. I'm not so sureabout who the the average Guardianista is, these days.

    The Grauniad has published a good many pieces over the last 6 months (mebbe longer) that were pro-soldiers.

    The same paper has featured writing from that well-known trendy pinko liberal, Mr Max Hastings, since at least 2005 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/04/iraq.usa1 )

    It is reasonable to deduce that - since the current bunch of governing shysters have been in office - the politics of many G-readers have shifted (to escape the dreaded 3rd way?).
     
  6. Stonks, pro-soldier is not necessarily pro-Army, pro-war or supportive of the institutions of defence. The Guardian has for example always tried to hammer the chisel of class for example between the grain of officers and Toms. It criticises lack of equipment on the one hand while castigating defence manufacturers on the other.

    The old school Guardianistas we remember from Radical Recognition training are now highly respectable civil rights lawyers, social workers and (somewhat scarily) head teachers. While they may have traded it in for a job, 2.4 and a Mondeo in the flesh, internally they are still deeply conflicted with the public personae!
     
  7. On the 'chisel' - I have argued on this site, very convincingly - that there is clear evidence of social bias in theArmy: but that it is more insidious than the likes of Eric Joyce have wit and wisdom to understand and convey, and is more about the commissioned pecking order than about 'chaps' vs 'blokes'.

    On the issue of lack of kit/defence manufacturers - as long as they are castigating industry for being over-priced and inefficient, whilst slapping MoD's laughable procurement 'process', and Gunmint for short-changing Tommy in the field- I'm with them all the way. :D
     
  8. Very convincingly...erm...I remain to be convinced...
     
  9. There are none so blind, etcetera, etcetera . . . :D :wink: