Sorry - Deepcut again.

Report by Adult Learning Institute - commissioned by Ingram - has reported. Amongst their comments
"The armed services have much to be proud of, but the risks to young recruits are too high."

The early drop-out rate was very high, but frequently dismissed as inevitable.

'Slum' accommodation

It said training and welfare needed to be more professionally managed.

"The skills needed to be successful in combat are not necessarily the same as those needed to manage a training establishment or to be an instructor."

It recommended that officers and instructors should remain in their posts for longer than two years - the current average - and receive proper training.

Other concerns raised by Adult Learning were some living conditions - "little better than slums" - and lax storage of weapons.
If training establishment management is lacking as claimed by IAL, doubtless they will push for further civilianisation. If the 'ideal' instructor may not have the successful in combat skills, who will teach recruits to survive? Moving this process further down the line may well cause the drop out bulge to come later - when even more effort and money is wasted by losing makee-learnee soldiers.
Education has shown us what happen when you relate results to low performance; qualifications are less well regarded. Is the Army going down the same route by doing what it can with what it gets rather than trying to improve what it can get out of youngsters with hard work and - just maybe - suffering. Claim is that 10% complain of bullying - why not let them go back where they came from and concentrate on the 90%?
Before loads of people dump on an old man thinking he condones bullying - No, not at all but all training must be realistic. Soldiers fit for purpose, soldiers fit for role. Recent award of VC and other gallantry awards surely emphasis what is needed when the chips are down.


They've got some points though. AHve you seen ITC CAtterick? Some of the accommodation is shocking. As for lax attitude to storing weapons, I think we've ben here before.

Training does need better management. Better management doesn't mean fluffy. Most of these soldiers expect the training to be hard. Look at the way they are performing in Iraq. That young VC winner only left ITC a couple of years ago. They're not all bad you know. SOme join for the wrong reasons and its thiose who complain loudest. What is needed is a common sense , feet on the ground selection practice. Taking anything that can walk talk and breathe unsupported in just madness. Yep, we need numbers, but taking in those who joined for the wrong reasons and leave under clouds, is damaging us.

Instructors need better training. A BIT course may appear to some as sufficient, but more is required. It's not just teaching them, it's about looking after them. Leeds Uni and others run 2 day counselling courses which, if the Army got its act together, along with other short courses could be taught by Uni staff in a Service environment.

Lets not knock the young lads too much. We were there once and most of us thought we wouldn't make LCpl.

We shouldn't be so resistent to change within the training environment. As I've already said, chsnge doesn't make it fluffy.

Pardon the spelling..........I'm having a dyslexia day (German keyboard.....keys not where the should be and all that)

Similar threads

Latest Threads