CLM what do you think?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Disco, Mar 11, 2004.

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. An equal ops initiative to get even more sick and fat people promoted

    0 vote(s)
  2. A tree hugging care bear approach to tough military training

    0 vote(s)
  3. Re-Inventing the wheel for a reason external to training

    0 vote(s)
  4. The result of a proper study into the pros and cons of the old Sgt and Cpls course

    0 vote(s)
  1. Now that CLM is finally here the talk of whether it is just an attendance course is still ongoing.

    Will it devalue promotion even further than what it currently is. Accepting that there are still good soldiers in the Corp who earn promotion I know I am not the only one who has identified a lack of quality in upcoming NCO`s.

    Do you see a benefit to this new approach?
  2. GunnersQuadrant

    GunnersQuadrant LE Moderator

    Looks bad for all concerned, it gives certain "favourite" individuals a quicker line for promotion without gaining the experience needed to be a JNCO/SNCO.
  3. Its a fcuking shame really. Seen a signal ref sgt to ssgt promotion eligibility, and there was at least one person on there who didn`t pass her sgt`s course `cos she couldn`t pass her cft, but because of the clm, the fat waster has snurgled in under the wire. The worst part is that people from other arms will see these people as representative of the standard of sncos in our corps.
  4. you missed 'absolute doddle' from your poll.
  5. You would hope that records have both reports next to each other when they are selecting people for promotion. I know quite a few people who openly admit that they have been waiting for the CLM because they couldnt face their SNCO's course or Detties. Hopefully this minority will be transparant to Glasgow.
  6. According to the MCM Div roadshow they said that all previous course reports would be removed from promotion boards. As CLM is a pass or pass (using a the green,amber,red system) course with no position or report they would be at a disadvantage against a person with a proper end of course positition and report.

    I think the jury is still out on whether that actually will happen or if they will still continue to refer to pre CLM course reports.

    The promotion boards for 04/05 I suspect will be controversial in that those who were not qualified for promotion through unwillingness to do career courses or medical reasons are now contenders for the boards. MCM did state that all any soldier needs is a "recommendation" for promotion. All that CLM does is provide the rubber stamp to move on to the next rank. CLM is not a pre requisite so there are no longer any barriers.

    MCM defended CLM in saying that it is a CO`s responsability to ensure the fighting fitness of troops beneath them and that career courses should not be a measure of that. But I have not seen people who get red on BPFA`s having thier fat arrse dragged back out on remedials so are we in a catch 22? If training becomes an "attempt" enviroment do we not lose our drive to succeed?

    *Edit - Typo
  7. Disco wrote:
    not quite true, they said that for the interim period when some soldiers would have reports and some would not then they should be removed. After full implementation all reports will be back in the books. In addition I saw a letter from Col MCM who said that individuals should still attend the last few Cpls or Sgts courses treating them as useful courses that would enable an NCO to operate with more effectiveness. Sounds right to me.

    The issue of training after selection and not before is a matter of using resources better. We used to train all SSgts in EFP2 but only promote 40% or so. Not to mention delaying someones ability to get to the board because of difficulty getting on a board.

    There are some very good NCOs who are professional and committed but who are downgraded for one reason or another. We must not limit their contribution to the Corps just because they can't do the intake CFT of the Sgt's course.

    We will always have lazy, fat knackers, so it is up to COs to judge whether they are worthy of promotion and make a recommendation for promotion mean more than it does at the moment.
  8. Yes agreed this is where CLM is a good idea, It was just as cut throat at junior level with the number of available slots at education centres being very small. But only time will tell if it is effective.

    Now this is an issue for me becuase the Army is a standards based organisation, how can we promote Soldiers who fail to achieve the minimum standards as defined by ITD`s etc. True we can have excellent Soldiers out there who are downgraded but by removing the barriers everyone gets through, the good and the bad.

    This can only be detrimental for a units overall operational effectiveness. How many of these downgraded soldiers would happily take promotion but then pull the medical card when a unit deploys on ops?

    The CFT and BPFA are not out of reach, it is a minimum standard. How can a newly promoted Staffy bellow out rollokins to JNCO`s about phys when he/she cannot carry thier own carcass around the running track? How can a newly promoted Cpl inspire his suboardinates if his image is one of a laminated biff chit saying no phys or duties?

    What ever happened to leading from the front?
  9. Exactly :mrgreen:
  10. Disco wrote:

    Come on lets treat the cup as half full, we know that EFP wasn't working for us with backlogs and some capbadges cheating with the x category.

    Next lets turn to your problems with unfit soldiers. Is it just those who fail the fitness ITD that you are concerned about? Can we still be led by people who can't pass an APWT or don't even attend First Aid etc? Surely the isssue here is not unfit soldiers getting through a training course that previously filtered them out it is about the moral courage of commanding officers who recommend people for promotion who are not fit to lead other soldiers.

    I do know of one officer, nameless of course, but he gave his squadron 2IC a non recommend and put him on a 3 month warning because he failed a BFT. The officer bucked up!!

    Can you answer a scenario Disco? Cpl X serves in Afghanistan and is in an RTA with a local. He compresses a vertibrae and is downgraded to P3 LE with a prognosis of 3 years before upgrading. He is a great guy, does nearly everything the troop does but rows in the gym or goes swimming when his troop are on PT. He goes on exercise and the rest. MCM select him for promotion and he goes to the education centre for his CLM bit then to Blandford. Clearly he can't do the CFT - do we send him back or give him all the remaining training that will allow him to function as a SNCO? This is what CLM is about!! We have never been about promoting unfit leaders.
  11. A very valid scenario and believe me I understand where your coming from but as I perceved it from MCM they had a medical board specificaly aimed at reviewing cases just like that.

    But the issue remains. Yes Soldiers should pass ITD`s Yes OC`s should grade properly and effectivly. Promotion should be achieved after qualification rather than promotion first qualifacation 2nd.

    Without the barrier (even if it had just become the CFT) what will happen to the amount of sick/lame/lazy? Increase or decrease?

    This is not a new argument. As a siggy I played enemy on the old SSgt`s course. Now those boys had it hard, and they were not all atheletes either. It was sheer grit and determination combined with personal training that got them through. Of course thier generation spat on mine saying we had it much easier and so on. I know my Det Cmdr`s in the early 90`s was way harder than my Sgt`s course. It is the order of things. The Corp has changed with each new generation. Problems with retention and recruitment have not helped. But values and standards should not be compromised to achieve statistical figures.

    You are correct when you say a soldiers bearing can be measured against his commitment and effort compared to physical fitness but it is the blanket effect that will drag your Cpl X down. Of course physical fitness is not the only parameter a soldier is graded on, but it is a fundemental part of soldiering.

    I dont want plunder into a heated debate, Scotch you have proved your point to me but I hope you can understand what I am saying.
  12. There are two levels here, primarily we are soldiers first then tradesmen second, therefore we all must maintain the basic standards, otherwise we are not soldiers and might as well be in the RAF.

    Secondly we must differentiate between those who are medically downgraded and those that are just fat/lazy/unfit. If someone is downgraded normally it is for a period of time and then at some point they are re-assessed. At that point they are either considered fit to carry on (fixed) or will remain as permanently downgraded.

    I firmly believe that if a soldier has been permanently downgraded, loss of leg, smashed back etc their still should be a place for them in the Army and the Corps as a whole. If they choose to remain serving (and I think this should be a two way agreement between the Corps and the soldier) then there are posts that are home only and do not need a 100% physically fit soldier. Whilst these posts are limited, we should not have too many soldiers who are no longer fully fit.

    The problem I foresee with this is promotion and future for these types of soldiers, do they get promotion or do they sign up to the fact that they must now standstill and soldier on at their current rank until 22 years.

    We should not throw good soldiers away onto the scrap heap because they have suffered an injury and can no longer function 100% physically, however these are different than those than can not function physically because they are too fat, too lazy etc.
  13. so are you proposing a two tier army......non-deployable and deploable
  14. doesnt that already exist? just not officially. :wink:

    It is easy to get swayed to thinking this is just about sickies and fatties. But my main point of view was we have moved into an enviroment were soldiers only have to "attempt" training objectives rather than "achieve" them.

    Will this attendance type course devalue the "pass" status and career training in the whole.

    Is right to remove the barriers ? Is CLM another way of cooking the books so the pass rate increases. I can remember the controversy over fail rates becuase of the CFT! I know of many soldiers who applied for a waiver just because of the CFT!

    I feel CLM is step too far and does not offer balance. A soldier should be motivated to earn qualification for promotion, He/she should not have it practically offered on a plate. Im not saying soldiers have to suffer, just show endurance commitment and study.

    But maybe it is the gap between my generation and those coming through now. Ive had to watch the 3 head bumper dissapear, carpets fitted into training accomodation and even ironing boards purchased! Why in my day we had to sit on spikes and eat weavels. The RSM had us out licking the parade square and that was if we were lucky... Then it was back to spear handling training. Oh the memories 8O
  15. I think we have a two tier army already. We definitely have an operational and a non operational side. But that is another matter

    I have not seen the course content of the CLM for either the JCLM or SCLM yet so I am unable to comment on the new courses. I have people on the next couple of courses so am awaiting feed back, I think that we will have to wait and see.

    I agree that standards should be kept and basic standards like ITDs should be tested prior to acceptance on the course. If someone fails then they should not attend. Waivers I believe are not in the Corps or Army’s best interest. Whilst I can sympathise with someone who is downgraded or injured at the time, they should wait until they are fit to attend. The waiver system just allows others to attend and pass what would have been a definite stop to their career because they do not meet the standard.

    I know that this is pretty emotive and would in effect stop an otherwise brilliant soldiers career if they were permanently downgraded. That however is a fact I think they should consider, if they were downgraded permanently then they have the choice of either staying at that rank or getting out and pursuing a career which does not have such exacting standards.

    As for courses which have no pass or fail criteria what is the point. How can you confirm the lesson have been learnt. Therefore why have the course in the first place. If the information is needed it must be taught then practiced and finally tested to ensure it has gotten home.