Survey - Does the Chain of Comd sp pers on ops?


Kit Reviewer
I'm doing a project into whether the Chain of Command sufficiently selects, trains, employs and provides legal topcover for its deployed personnel. Central to this study is the viewpoint of the military community. Below is a link to an online survey which intends to gather your perception - serving, TA, ex, interested civvies - even crabs and matelots. Operational experience is not necessary to do the survey. Thanks in advance for your time (and no, I'm not a journalist - the project will be published and, depending on whether its crap or not, it could be read by some quite high up bods).
That's a pretty duff 'survey' there, Napier. The questions are poorly presented and they tend towards a prejudiced outcome.
Are you a prospective senior body in the service? You could do better, I'm sure.
Whether they tend towards a prejudiced outcome would depend on how Napier is using the data. The majority of the questions are of the Yes, No, Dont know or Very Well, Well, Just Enough, Not enough type. There is scope in all the questions to give a negative or positive so i dont think its "Duff".
Disagree. Yes/No/Don't know doesn't give the respondent enough latitude to give a meaningful answer to the questions asked in most of those questions. Questions 3 to 11 are good questions, but need better 'multiple choice' pings, or whatever they're called.
Good research needs good method. British universities don't need crap students, courses, teachers or methods of learning.
Even I know that, and I'm a lowly worker.
I agree - this survey is flawed.

The questions need to be phrased in such a way that the interviewee has to qualify the reason why a particular view is held otherwise it is too subjective. You are appreciating the appreciation !

I wonder why the chain of comand would not support those on operations ? Seems an odd study to me - but good luck with it anyway.


Kit Reviewer
The survey is to give background flavour to a study of whether the 'Military Covenant', effectively an emotional contract between the Army and the individual, can be/is upheld by the Army. The main areas I'm looking at are selection and training, with a comparison to CO19 (formerly SO19) and legal support when things go wrong.

A major issue as I see it is that the Army is not in a position to make a covenant (solemn contract) when there are external factors and contributors to the contract over which the Army has no control (Political, financial, media, pressure groups, etc.).

I know the survey is short and a bit clunky, but I want to gain a feeling of the subjective perception of the military community about some fairly topical subjects, as most views are personal and subjective - just like an emotional contract. I have the tools to separate out individual responses to delve into certain groups as req. Also I wanted it to be short and easy to complete to encourage the max number of people to complete it (thanks to the 300 who have)
Topical subject - However it is not the chain of Command that let the lads down it is the government:

Government (on hearing an accusation ie abuse) tell the MoD which line to toe
MoD then tell CDS and CGS which line to toe
CDS/CGS then tell the RMP/SIB which line to toe
RMP/SIB then toe the line....... Now the snag!!!

The Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) are not in the chain of command!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It the APA do not toe the line (as in the case of Col Mendonca)

Then the Attorney General steps in and ensures that the line is toe-d.

No chance for the chain of command to do anything but watch!!!!

Never mind......................
Finished, can I have a cup of tea now please niurse ?. As with all surveys they can have a degree of predictive context to them statistics dam lies etc. Dont look to closely at the cops initial promotion runs on memeory recall followed by translation of job speak for some higher levels. Also the legal support offered comes from the federation a non employer organisation. Police solicitors are normally the one who fail to get in the CPS,. enough said.

Good grief you would think you were submitting a research document for a Phd. I didn't realise we had so many Professors in the ranks.

I have answered the (obviously necessary) simple survey, but in addition, if you want my 10 pence worth -

1. The rules of the game have changed beyond all recognition i.e political fallout / media scrutiny.
2. Modern Operations rarely require "War fighting", just more dangerous 'police' actions.
3. The standard of training required to field a motivated, media aware soldier who knows his legal obligations instinctively (and is able to switch instantly to combat soldier) is simply too high for todays recruit. I doubt if it was ever there. We've gone way beyond the "Belfast street-smart" that's done us proud these last forty years..

Answer: More training for soldiers and NCO's (Brecon ?) in todays type of conflict. The falklands is about as relevant as Mons 1914 yet we are still re-living it every 3 months on Sennybridge. Of course we need to know that the troops are fit and able to kill, but more time and money needs to be spent. Unfortunately there could be more money (extra peace-keeping skills would warm the heart of any politician), but where's the time??
It's no use relying on a conscientious well-educated Lt. who has had conflict resolution rammed down his throat since seeing his first Officer recruitment ad. It only takes a single ******** in a platoon to 'break the rules' or one scared boy to overreact, and how many ********* and young boys are in the average Platoon?

Conclusion: The Army needs all those things that it can't get. Better recruits. More relevant training. More time.
Or even better...
Less global involvement and most importantly, the acceptance that we are no longer a superpower and responsible for policing the world.

Bleedin' obvious... And me an ex-Cpl (and armchair general).


P.S Say Hi to the family (That includes the dog).


Similar threads

Latest Threads