• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Deepcut report is not going to be happy reading.

#4
As for the 'Our sons and daughters were murdered\bullied to death' I still favour the 'Sprog dicking around with weapons on stag and killed themselves' theory with maybe one suicide. What alot of the media does not report is that 2 of those killed were to be discharged anyway due to the fact they failed basic training, and constant re-tests.
Besides, why were they stagging on by themselves anyway? Surely it is common sense to post recruits in pairs?
 
#5
Speedy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4345953.stm

And it is expected to recommend a raising of the minimum age of recruits from 16 to 18.
That'll hurt recruiting figures!
Why would MP's be able to make a judgement if they have never served in the HMF and know anything about the culture and the way of life of a recruit.

I would not be able to make a medical diagnosis of an ill person! so why should they comment on military..
 
#6
far2young2die said:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1174454,00.html

It won't effect recruiting figures, they will just cut the number of soldiers required to join and then say 'Look we are hitting our target fiigures' See hospital waiting lists, unemployment figures etc for previous!
I agree. You will end up with enthusiastic school leavers want to be soldiers, by the time they are 18 they will either be in higher education (something they will not be able to continue in the army (regardless of what the recruiting blurb states) due to commitments should they want to, or they will have a job, girlfiend and it will be to much hassle. Either way its not good.
It gets me when the media actually think we send 16 year olds to battle, and brainwash them from a tender age, but leave religious colleges which do a far deeper and more damaging job of destroying young minds than an apprentice college ever could.
 
#7
I can understand some of the concerns and maybe a stronger 'vetting process' is required for recruiting junior soldiers. Those who are obviously not physically up to basic training should probably not be accepted straight away? Might be hard to monitor as we get enough welfare cases joining as adults but it might be worth trying?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#8
canteen_cowboy said:
Why would MP's be able to make a judgement if they have never served in the HMF and know anything about the culture and the way of life of a recruit.

I would not be able to make a medical diagnosis of an ill person! so why should they comment on military..
Because they're mostly in the legal professions and as such are a higher class of creature, know everything and require more dosh for upkeep.
This must be true as they have to vote themselves large pay rises with alarming speed.
I mean, these Übermenschen wouldn't tell us porkies...... would they ?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#9
There may be failings in the recruitment process, there may not be. But there are certainly failings in our leadership.

As another poster on a seperate thread commented 'the careerists have taken over'.

Very few of these people really give a monkeys for thier troops. They only start to care when it goes tits up. Once they have established that there will be no damage to thier career.........back on yer heads lads.

Before any rupert accuses me of 'having a chip on my shoulder about officers'......I'd like to add that careerism is not an officer only sport. It has crept into the soldier ranks and it looks like it's here to stay.
 
#10
It has just been released.

From BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4345953.stm

MPs attack Army in Deepcut report

The Commons Defence Select Committee said the Army had "failed to grasp the nettle" in its duty of care.

It recommended a new independent complaints panel and raising the minimum age for joining up, but stopped short of calling for a public inquiry.

The inquiry was one of a number sparked by four deaths at the Deepcut barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002.

The report demanded the independent complaints body replaces the current system, under which officers handle bullying complaints.

The panel would have retrospective powers, allowing it to examine the Deepcut cases, as well as a series of deaths at the Catterick barracks in Yorkshire.

The report, which followed a year-long investigation, looked at all the armed services but was particularly critical of the Army.

It also made recommendations on the selection of training staff, following concerns that troublesome soldiers may be given such jobs to keep them out of frontline units.

And a raising of the minimum age of recruits from 16 to 18 was also recommended.

It criticised the chain of command and the barracks but did not call for a full public inquiry, as had been demanded by families of the four dead recruits.

Geoff Gray, whose 17-year-old son, also called Geoff, died at Deepcut, welcomed the report but questioned whether it went far enough.

"Thank God the Defence Select Committee has had the guts to say there is a huge problem here that needs fixing."

He told BBC News: "We need to have a transparent inquiry where witnesses are brought into an arena where everybody sees what's going on.

"There's been too many reviews [and] investigations held behind closed doors - the only way to satisfy the British public is to have a full public inquiry."

Defence chiefs last week insisted training and standards of care for new recruits was improving.

"We have taken the concerns seriously and have made strenuous efforts to identify shortcomings," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

"Unless we maintain the confidence of the public they will not send us their sons and daughters.

"We are never going to be perfect but we have to be better than we are now."

The Army has put in place an anti-bullying policy, a mentor policy, and improved access to welfare services.
 
#11
Speedy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4345953.stm

And it is expected to recommend a raising of the minimum age of recruits from 16 to 18.
That'll hurt recruiting figures!
Pandering to the leftie/eu agenda again. Never mind that it produces well motivated decent citizens from often unlikely material. Let's change everything because a few didn't make it.

How about we postpone, say, secondary education for fat children until they are 18 because they get bullied at secondary school.

Of course I sympathise with the parents - it must be hell to lose a child in such circumstances. Yes, the system was found wanting but let's not go overboard and change everything. I don't know about careerism - there's too much interventionism it seems to me.

You have to say though, the lawyers, social workers, and other sundry parasites have had a field day on this one. Almost as good an earner as the Bloody Sunday moneypot.
 
#12
The bullying problem seems to be down to fact that majority of it is hard training not recognised or experienced any where other than in the forces. Getting all of the guys to do what the majority of the squad can do is essential. However, if the person deemed to be "bullied" by the civvies cannot get up to standard, reject him there and then. Out. Just like getting on the lorry on P course.
 
#13
My experience of training recruits is such that I welcome the decision to delay entry to 18.

U18s have a 30% chance of completing Ph 1 and Ph 2 training. If he gets injured his chances of completing training fall to 10%. By contrast an adult has a 70% chance of completing training (30% if injured).

This is of course teaching U18s in an adult environment, not Junior Leaders - and naturally AFCs are neither, so when the recruits are trained at Ph 2 with adults their failure rate increases rapidly.

Funnilly/oddly no one seems to picked up the point that the HCDC has dismissd the need for a public inquiry into Deepcut. IMHO only needed in order to clear the air and remove the oxygen to people claiming Army cover up.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
barbs said:
My experience of training recruits is such that I welcome the decision to delay entry to 18.
I agree with you up to a point. It is certainly true that over 18s are more likely to survive the training process but I suspect that by imposing this restriction, we will cut ourselves off from a pool of potential recruits that we can ill afford to lose. The fact is that many of the 16/17 year old age group that we can target for recruitment now may well have lost their enthusiasm if they've been doing something else in the interim before they pass the 18 barrier. It will also be the case that all recruits who kill or harm themselves after this is imposed will be over 18, though presumably still loaded towards the lower age of the spectrum, so what will happen then - ban recruitment of 18-20 year olds? It might be that we need to look at more intelligent ways of selecting recruits, as well as being more intelligent about selecting their instructors, rather than throwing in arbitrary age limits.
 
#15
All this trouble that happened at deepcut, is it still going on or has it stopped?

Also There was a para that got kicked out for gang raping a girl. Does any one know his name?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#16
Anya1982 said:
All this trouble that happened at deepcut, is it still going on or has it stopped?

Also There was a para that got kicked out for gang raping a girl. Does any one know his name?
R E A D

T H E

B L O O D Y

T H R E A D !
 
#17
The HCDC Report makes mention of an 'Empowered Officer', that was, I presume the CO.

However, the report suggests that the 'Empowered Officer' should now be a civilian, who is able to overrule the CO in matters 'duty of car'. This would suggest that if a recruit is able to convince the 'Empowered Officer' that he/she is a victim (in the broadest sense), then the CO will be overruled, and will not be able to exercise 'command' over his soldiers.

More 'management' speak creeping in. Soon there won't be much point commanding anything, you'll have your commissar over your shoulder the whole time. 8O
 
#18
barbs said:
My experience of training recruits is such that I welcome the decision to delay entry to 18.
Sorry, I disagree. I joined as an Army Apprentice at sixteen, I did my three years of Military, Academic and Trade training and went on to complete my 22. Had I not joined at that age, I feel that I may have been less receptive to my training, and possibly, as a consequence, a less useful soldier. Just my opinion, guv.
 
#19
I had the dubious task of training recruits at ATR Pirbright for Ph1 Trg. They would then be passed onto Deepcut for Ph2 Trg. Based on their chosen (allocated!) specialisation the amount of time they would spend at Deepcut waiting for their Ph2 Trg to begin could range from a couple of days to 6 - 8 months. When I bumped into some of my ex-recruits from ATR at Deepcut 6 months after passing out of ATR and asked them what they'd been up to whilst waiting to start their Ph2 Trg, the reply more often than not was ...."Stagging on". Young soldiers, repetitive duties, NAAFI bar and now free of the control and scrutiny of the ATR is a recipe for disaster. I argued on many occasions to send these recruits to units, granted not fully trained or operationally deployable, but i would argue this would be a healthier environment to spend time awaiting their Ph2 Trg than Stagging on at Deepcut!
 
#20
Not Good At All. Sprogs stagging on in units of ONE?????

Bad news always makes Tony say sorry... go on Tony say it again for us... SORRY... you know you want to... It may get you a few more votes!!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts