Soldiers are too thick for Civvy Street!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Iolis, Jun 7, 2008.

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. Swiss Tony's reasoned analysis in this article

    "Defence Secretary Des Browne faced fresh anger over soldiers' pay last night after suggesting their low wages are justified because many would fail to get better-paid jobs outside the Army.

    Mr Browne said young recruits were not paid as much as 'uniformed organisations in civilian street' because they lacked the qualifications needed for other jobs...."

    The academic qualifications and experience required of a better paid traffic warden are what exactly?

    The formal academic, and any other qualifications required as a condition sine qua non of a member of Parliament are what precisely?

    None whatsoever!

    Mr Brown's observation is as intellectually impoverished as he is!

    This 'creature' has but a short time remaining to acclimatise himself to life outside of Parliament at the next election where, I am sure he will discover for himself precisely what 'unemployable' means.
  2. This is quite funny really. I earn far more as a civvy than I ever did by being a soldier. I still feel a connection though as serving my country/people made me proud and I did not require a massive expense account nor a second home (paid for by working people) to do it.

    I am willing to bet that far more British citizens respect/trust soldiers than politicians. I am also willing to bet that far more citizens would trust a backbencher than a member of the cabinet.

    Gordon Brown is probably the only minister with any gravitas at all, and who trusts him?

    Our government=scum.

    Heads up! Who has covered both firemen and bin men strikes? Who helped in the floods and mad cow disease? Who risk their lives in sorties this government sends them to?

    F-in politicians are now scum.

    WTF has Des Browne or any other cabinet minister ever done for their fellow citizens that did not require renumeration? B_Stards!
  3. Most squaddies go on to get good jobs, normally pretty good wages.

    In is more an inditement on the government that so many end up on the streets, often with mental troubles left untreated or similar.

    Likewise the fact that many don´t have good quals from school yet are often clearly intelligent is another indicator of how the government fails the country.

    Of course Des might want to come round and we´ll compare quals. There´s not many MHE drivers with MScs (nearly anyway) i´ll wager.
  4. The man has to go, this really is the classic example of an untenable position. Even if it were factually true, which I don't believe for a minute, you don't say something like this about the people you're meant to be leading. It really does just go to show what he really thinks of and how little respect he has for large swathes of the armed forces that he's in charge of.

    He needs to be shuffled off to the Scotland Office full-time and a new Secretary of State for Defence found immediately.
  5. Likewise, I don´t think firemen or yellow perils need quals that much either.
  6. When that arrse gets booted out of Parliament he'll probably shuffle off to become a highly-paid lawyer with his fingers in the till (which is what he was before politics, I believe). Wnaker.....hope he dies painfully.
  7. And/Or appointed to the board of some large defence contractor no doubt.
  8. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    The comments are ignorant and short sighted. Des has a tendency to make observations such as this. Remember the soldier he told "couldn't do his job" a couple of years ago in Iraq and the remark he got back?

    What i'd suggest is that his comments might be quite true BUT only if you take it from the position of a recruit. Once a man has been in the army any time, we all know the training we give and responsibility we force on them give him means when he goes back out into civvy street, he will punch above his weight, showing much more drive and commitment than any comparible civvy. He becomes a target for employers because they know we will pull his weight and more.

    Perhaps that contribution to society should be remembered - the change that happens to young men of little prospects to confident capable members of society.
  9. I don't think anyone would argue that serving in the Army didn't pave the way to improved job prospects down range: it's a truism.

    Have a look at these people's job prospects before they joined the Army (which is what Swiss Tony is saying) and then place his comments into context.
  10. And that is exactly what he said, as far as I can make out from the excerpt in the Daily Hate.

    I am sorry Iolis but I feel you have distorted his words and meaning.

    These comments were made last June! The RBL's explanation for why they only took issue with the words now fail logical scrutiny. Quite clearly, they saw the MoD under fire and decided to get in the fray. They had nothing so they went further back in time and decided to nit pick.

    This will not do anything for the reputation of the RBL I don't think.
  11. I don't think he's saying squaddies are too thick to find work in civvy street, he's saying that the new recruits coming into the army don't have the qualifications that others do who get higher paid jobs (HNC/HND/degree).

    It's still a really daft thing to say considering a fair few recruits have dreamt of joining the army since before they sat their tests, and a large number will have decent qualifications that could have got them a job on the outside. Also the brainier people he is on about will all be at Uni until their about 20/21 anyway.

    I'm still waiting for a labour politician to show a set of balls and admit that bad administration, corruption and stupidity have caused the country to be near bankrupt and in a bad position, hence why no pay rises are coming for anyone in the public sector.
  12. And a civvy school-leaver doesn't have those qualifications, either. If he's comparing like with like, there isn't that much difference between a young lad or lass entering basic and one entering college/uni/apprenticeship/first job. Lets compare them at the 1 or 2 year stage and see what's what.

    If he's comparing a young soldier on his first tour with a Uni graduate, he's being deliberately disingenuous or just plain thick.
  13. Am I to understand then that soldiers come from a different gene pool? Are we really 'A breed apart' in more ways than one?

    To suggest that the only people who sign up are incapable of getting any other jobs is ludicrous. What does this say about the more technical trades in the army? Hardly a boost of confidence to them, is it? Likewise, this could also be interpreted as a slur against the army's standards, and that young people who have failed to get jobs elsewhere are using the army as a safety net, or indeed an easy pay check.

    It's quite easy to kick a body of men when their lips are sealed. Can anyone imagine outbursts like this being tolerated if they were aimed at the fire brigade, police, etc?
  14. Says it all really, this is the person who's job it is to represent Defence in Cabinet and what does he do? He sets out to devalue the very people he is supposed to represent. I wish that I could get to speak to him in a one to one situation to express my utter contempt, but I suspect that will never happen.
  15. What qualifications do you need to be a cabinet minister?

    John Prescott made it to deputy PM and he failed his 11 plus. What does that say?