Deepcut report by The Adult Learning Inspectorate.

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4366235.stm

They make it sound like joing the army is like doing a Learn Direct course!!!
Of course there is a high drop-out rate. The army is very demanding.

Adult Learning said the armed forces' own data showed about one in 10 military personnel - or 20,000 across the three services - suffered bullying or harassment.
Please define bullying and harrassment.

"The newest recruits, women and people from minority ethnic groups are particularly vulnerable."
Why? We have hundreds of recruits from commonwealth countries. I've not heard them complaining?

The problem with critisising army training is that the civvies doing the inspection have absolutley zero knowlege of what a sldier needs to do in reality, and have nothing to compare it against.
 
#3
I can't help thinking that this kind of intererence will just shift the problem. If training gets too easy won't sprogs who've just left and go on their first operational tour who haven't suffered sleep deprivation, stress, pressure and all of the other nasty things we take for granted end up topping themselves anyway?
 
#6
I foind the comment about almost 'slum' like accomdation amusing. The accom at Deepcut is a mansion compared to the squalor that they may find themselves living in after training. ANyway, training accom is not supposed to be luxurious, if anything it is supposed to be in the best state of cleanlines and repair!!
 
#7
Absolute bollocks report.
'A "hotspot" of bullying was Deepcut St Omer bks' yet Blandford scored worse on reports of bullying and harassment. Statistically insignificant due to small numbers and small number of postitive answers.
Just as well then they're not comparing it with medical student training where 2/3 report bullying and harassment Student BMj report but that wouldn't be bashing the army now would it.
 
#8
From page 45 of the report (p53 of the pdf)
Everyday housekeeping is often the focus of
harassment. While it is clearly necessary for the
armed forces to instil higher standards of
cleanliness and neatness than many teenagers
display at home, the extent and the means can
often seem extreme. For example, at HMS
Raleigh, recruits are given a diagram, with
precise measurements which correspond to their
personal space on board ship, showing how
clothes are to be ironed, folded and laid out on
a bunk for morning inspection. Some recruits
claim that they cannot meet the standard
demanded unless they prepare their kit the night
before and sleep on the floor.
How unreasonable 8O
 
#9
One major stumbling block I suppose is that the ALE want to achieve maximum passes by any means neccerscery whilst the army needs people to fail (as to weed out those who are unsuitable). Once again the message that the army is not for everyone is failing to get out.
 
#10
Speckled_Jim said:
From page 45 of the report (p53 of the pdf)
Everyday housekeeping is often the focus of
harassment. While it is clearly necessary for the
armed forces to instil higher standards of
cleanliness and neatness than many teenagers
display at home, the extent and the means can
often seem extreme. For example, at HMS
Raleigh, recruits are given a diagram, with
precise measurements which correspond to their
personal space on board ship, showing how
clothes are to be ironed, folded and laid out on
a bunk for morning inspection. Some recruits
claim that they cannot meet the standard
demanded unless they prepare their kit the night
before and sleep on the floor.
How unreasonable 8O
Ummm hello! I spent all of my basic with my bed-block made up the night before and slept under the counterpaine. Saved me loads of bo11ockings and I managed a little more sleep than I might have got away with. Most of the rest of the troop did the same. Adapting to the situation and making the best of it while getting the job done. I didn't feel harrassed.
 
#11
And there was me thinking that this was to mank people learn about time management and prior planning, but bugger me it wan't!! It was all about bullying and harrassment all along!
 
#12
Yet again civilian standards being applied to what is annother world, the result of taking these scandlous examples of "harrasment" is a civilian in green, which is useless in the field. While there is always many civilian organisations to bash a system that works why is there never any organisation who publicly declares reports like this to be the rubbish they are?

The example of HMS Raleigh is a big 8O who lets these idiots pass judgement? Harassment? If you cant hack it get out
 
#13
I'd rather rely on a soldier that has been 'harassed' and got through it than one that hasn't and is going to buckle when things get difficult.

Everyone who joins the army are volunteers and much as I'd like to believe that a volunteer is better than a 'pressed man' there is far too much evidence out there that many join blinded by the glamour rather than the reality of hard work and difficult situations.

National Service proved that a pressed man could be 'beasted' into a good soldier far more easily that a 'Walt' wannabee who is more suited to work at Sainsburys than on Salsbury Plain.

Okay. The Army has been tough in the past, but I haven't seen anyone complain after Korea, the Falklands, Gulf, Kosovo and others, so it should be tough now. "If it's not broken, don't fix it" should be the motto, not "if it's not broken, fix it 'till it is"!

These bleeding heart lefty civvy know-it-alls are just trying to get things so 'safe' they are going to get people killed.
 
#14
PP,

Have you actually read the report?

msr
 
#15
A great quotes from the beginning of the report.

The combat success of the armed forces, cannot on its won validate the quality of the training regeim.
Good Grief.
 
#16
msr said:
PP,

Have you actually read the report?

msr
Not cover to cover, no.

However, my coments are on the confusion with what constitutes 'harassment' and the fact that these Inspectors haven't grasped the realities of life in the forces.

. I've been 'verbally encouraged at high volume', 'physically assisted', made to 'feel very uncomfortable' for periods of time' and made to do what seemed pointless monotonous tasks when I could have been doing something more useful during my training.

I now discover that what I assumed was 'training' is now deemed to be a form of 'harassment'. The fact remains that what I and everyone else who went through training around the same time as me finished their training better prepared for military life, or as a civvy before the end of that training. Is there any other way?

The 'Duty of Care' report, which drew on the conclusions of the ALI report, pointed out the failings in the Armed Forces 'Duty of Care' for the soldier in training. What was I feel ignored, was the Armed Forces 'Duty of Care' to all serving soldiers sailors and airmen that the manpower resorces leaving the training establishments can be relied on to do the job they have supposedly been trained to do, in situations they should be prepared for.

Over the last 10 years this has not always been the case as some new crows have been unable to accept or cope with heierachy and dicipline within a working unit, causing that unit, it's soldiers and themselves no end of heartache, before leaving, or being 'asked to leave'. Wastage should happen in the training establishment, where it is better prepared for and before the expence of wasted training has been incurred not in the working unit. Life should be hard in training and get better on posting, not the other way round.
 
#17
I'm about half way through the report, and it does make interesting reading. But it is heavily, heavily weighed towards a civilianisation of training methods i.e. lots of recreation time, accomdation of a similar standard to civvy bedrooms, and a general easing of pressure and disipline. What however is missing is any kind of follow up. For instance how can a recruit who has been trough a training regeim recommended by the report be able to stand the pace in a working unit, especialy on tour?
Accomodation in barracks is oten awful (especially in the UK), and the pace of life is often far harder than current training.
One thing which is quite obvious in the report, is that recruits should be supervised after working hours far more than they currently are. Would this result in more training staff, or just more duties for those already there?
Also recommended is that instructors should be retained for longer. This too is a civiliansation of training. How can a depot instructor teach when they may have lost touch with the greater army. What if that person wants to progress beyond depot, but has been there for 5 years or more? How out of touch would they be? What would their man mangement be like?
There are quite a few positive things in the report, such as bringing to light the lack of funds available for barrack improvements and modernisation, and other govt cuts deeply affecting the army, but on the whole it makes slightly scary reading.
 
#18
Well when I joined up and went to Pibright(Guards) Jesus Christ it was pretty tough.
At 17 it is abit of a shock to have NCO in your face 24/7 but it made me alot better person and I realised everything they did no matter how arrsey was done for a reason to keep us alive in the field.
Let's be honest they joined the ARMY to be trained to kill.
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Leaving aside the genuine bullying, which most of us can recognise, I would say that unless the recruits all report feeling harrassed then the depot staff are not doing their jobs.

The whole point is to form a TEAM of soldiers from a GROUP of teenage wasters.

Sitting round with a "facillitator" and doing NLP based "team exercises" produces social workers, not soldiers.
 
#20
Are we heading to for a situation where the inmates are running the asylum?
Pehaps it would have been benificial for the reports authors to question former recruits a year after leaving or after their first operational tour, to get a better picture of just what training is all about, because without that level of input it renders the report useless.
 

Similar threads

Top