Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Speedy, Mar 14, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
That'll hurt recruiting figures!
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!
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?
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..
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.
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?
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 Ãbermenschen wouldn't tell us porkies...... would they ?
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.
It has just been released.
From BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4345953.stm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Separate names with a comma.