Representative Recruiting urged for officers by MP report

Discussion in 'Officers' started by Carcass, Jul 3, 2007.

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. http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200707/4e5939fe-a029-40f4-8f00-fac6328c1b64.htm
    Doe this make anyone else's blood boil? Why should it be representative??? Surely the best qualified and most able personnel should get the job, not the one who had the most tragic upbringing.
     
  2. We get enough problem children as it is.
     
  3. Absolutely agree with you there old boy. The Army, indeed all forces are Meritocracies, and only those who can do the job should rise. Sadly,t his is not the case in some places: Ref. The MetPols decision not to promote Ali Dizaei from Commander, and every newspaper kicking up a stink about it. Even The Time had a piece! The Time I tell ye! Owned by the white-power tycoon Rupert Murdoch.
     
  4. http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=71450.html

    As I said here, I feel that it is already representative, in that it's open to anybody, as long as they have the neccessary basic qualifications and can demonstrate the qualities required at AOSB.

    It isn't the militaries fault that not all the general public are capable of displaying these abilities. It would be incredibly short sighted of any minister to start pushing for "more representative" RMAS entrants.
     
  5. How can they take more people from educationl backgrounds also? One needs to have a college education to be able to get into the Army as an orificer anyway! Some MPs just dont do thei research....
     
  6. Ducki, I think the point that Mr Davidson (I believe) was trying to make was that young people who are eligible to apply (possess the basic requirements) from a state schooling background outnumber those from a private schooling background, and on this evidence he feels that the Army (more so than the other services) is not providing opportunities to these state schooled potentials.

    I happen to disagree with him, but he does appear to know what he is talking about. I can also see why, elsewhere in the minutes, someone talks about the "old boys" network. This out-dated attitude towards how Army Officers are is still quite widespread in the public, and does not help. State schooled potentials don't bother because they think that they need to have some sort of connection with the Army to get in.
     
  7. Surely treasonous Jihadist muslims are under-represented....
     
  8. Substitute the word 'wealthy' for the word 'tragic' and I think you'll understand what Mr Davidson is driving at.
     
  9. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Absolutely!
    If this sort of crap goes on, before you know it there will be women and gays in the army too! :x
     
  10. And for that reason you should recruit from the widest possible range of possible applicants to make sure you don't miss that key diamond. That of course does not mean having quotas, just being equally as active in all areas.
     
  11. Maxi,

    So exactly who is being denied opportunity and how? Are there special squads targetting the elite whilst neglecting the rest of us?

    PAW
     
  12. Well I got in on the ignorant Zimbabwean ticket.

    Imagine their disappointment when they discovered I wasn't bleck!!
     
  13. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    You may not be - but check your docs! :wink:
     
  14. The main body of the article is about shortfalls in recruiting blamed on high numbers leaving the army, so that it closes on a point about unrepresentative recruiting is quite bizarre.


    As an outsider*, I imagine army recruiting could be helped by improving pay and conditions rather than by trying to sweep minorities into the bag. The relentless service we see now is a problem because those currently serving aren't used to this ratio of service to leave and because it's badly managed (promises of leave not met, rather than a realistic approach throughout the system). If there was some reward for officers and men being consistently pushed beyond what is usually expected, them you'd see fewer people leaving because of it. As it stands, it seems that many servicemen feel taken for granted by the top levels of management.

    People entering the army would, I feel, be more likely to remain if the heavy service (and, asap, much improved support and pay for said service) is made clear; as opposed to the current recruiting setup which stresses professionalism and R&R/Adventure-Sports rather than professionalism and heavy service, the latter being the direction we are heading towards.

    To my mind, this level of service need not be a problem until officers are married and have families to balance their time with, by which time many will have been slotted behind desks. Though no doubt my willingness to serve a rigorous cycle of active service posting is no doubt helped by my not having experienced the lack of support and real stress of active service.


    *Playing down the value of what I say, rather than playing it up. So, take it with a pinch of salt and show me where I'm wide of the mark.
     
  15. Invictus

    My only comment on your post is that I don't think the unrepresentative recruiting point was suggesting giving preference to a minority; rather, it was about the opposite - stopping giving apparent preference to a minority, ie those educated at fee-paying schools.