This wouldnt happen under the new system, they would have attended the course as staffies, and wouldnt need to be selected for promotion to WO2. I wasnt aware that successful completion of the IS supvr course was a must for the promotion, they could take the new system into account and post them onto the RD roster with their WO2's - although i would imagine that would piss more than a few people off. I'v given up knowing whats going on these days. For instance, can App Ops and DBA's apply for the supvr course? I was under the impression that they couldnt, but have been told that they can and some have - dont mind either way tho, good luck to them - its just getting hard to know whats going on with the trade when the goal posts are changing all the time.
Can't say that I've ever seen anything in SOinC PDs, MS Guides, APC Guides, AGAIs or any other of the rivetting reads out there that say slelection for promotion is dependant on passing the IS Sup Cse ?
But then it does appear that they are making it up as they go along with your rosta !
I find it hard to believe that if the individuals in question were selected off the promotion board they are now being told to forget it ! (quality management)
Is the Corps making a rod for its own back by selecting people for promotion prior to them being actually qualified !
The recent Cpl to Sgt board had a significant amount of names that have not done EFP or even Cpls courses - will they also get told to hop it when failing any of these - or are the makers and shakers just hoping that does not happen now that they are becoming attendance courses
Making it up as they go along, that seems to sum it up yosser!!!
I certainly think the corps is making a rod for its own back. Fair enough to select someone who is outstanding, get them through their courses and get them promoted. But it worries me that people who have been sitting around for a long time waiting for the rules to change are being selected and if that individual didnt have the drive to get onto their detties (i'll not say efp, getting a course can be a nightmare), maybe thats not the calibre of person who should get selected. There are always places available on the Cpls course, if you wait for records to nominate you, you will sit about forever.
If on the other hand, those selected attend their detties/efp and dont come up to scratch and lose thier selection for promotion, that can only benefit those waiting in the queue behind them, more vacancies next year.
Having attended the course in question I can clarify some points on this subject:
1. The 'Blandford 3' have indeed been deselected for promotion, even though they came off the board for WO2!
2. Those attending the course were given a letter (on day 2) stating that failure meant deselection.
3. The '3' were told they had failed minutes before the rest of us were promoted (prior to this they had no indication and neither did the rest of us). Since we lived in shared accom there were then 9 with WO2 badges and 3 without as we packed to leave!
We must bear in mind that it was a management course and this must be a lesson in personnel management!..........
It is absolutley ridiculous that a bunch of people can make an opinion on 3 people in 9 weeks and state that they are not IS Supervisor material. Having been selected for promotion to WOII on the back of numerous CR's I beleive they were hung out to dry by a bunch of incompitant fools.
Take it all the way lads. You may not get back your promotion back but you can show up that shower of S.... in Blandford.
Please let me know if I am wrong, but I heard that there was a real personality clash between one of the Blandford 3 and a WO2 instructor. I was told that they had served together in 16 an had a "hate-hate" relationship.
Now if you can't hear alarm bells ringing!!!!!
Where the deselected for promotion comes into it, PASS!!!!!!!!!
I doubt it very much if a WO2 could fail a student, stop them being promoted and make them loose money.............if would have to be a very squeeky clean department that allows a WO2 to fail people of that rank...............still it is not impossible knowing the corps !
Knowing as I do all parties concerned, I find it very difficult to beleive that the WOII in question would be so unproffesional as to effect whatever input he might have had in the decision made to fail the Blandford Three. I dont beleive that what happened in the past has any bearing on the result of the course. If that was the case then why did the other two fail
It is a sad fact that they did not pass and subsequently de-selected for promotion. Instead of people looking for an individual to blame, how about looking at the collective of higher ranking personnel who would of had a greater say on the matter.
IT seems a shame that a SSgt or WO2 cannot prove themselves worthy as supervisory material within 9 weeks, those that can't hardly deserve to be a Supervisor IS . Maybe the Blandford 3 should have concentrated a little more on the course objectives rather than sit in the Mess bar taking the piss out of the FofS and YofS course having to do much longer for their 10 grand . Is there at least hope for the Blandford three as I believe there are already WO2 IS Ops, DBA's and App Spec Ops that havent completed a supervisors course. You should have tried harder at school!!!!
Promote them, I know one of them and one of the lads on the course with them. This is showing the IS trade in it's true colours, a sham. A thrown together course that has been padded out. I'm ashamed to say it but there is alot of problem with the setup.
They were promoted, or rather selected for promotion and them the goal posts moved, pass or don't get your WOII. There is a selection on next month to load the next course with victims, I feel sorry for you lot.
Blandford should wait until the TDT review is finished and published in December until loading another crap course..
I Know a friend who said he knows some of the people on the course, and he said that they said, that it's a load of sh*te!
He said, that they wondered why people with such obvious knowledge and skills, should be required to prove their management abilities? Surely if they'd have wanted to do all that sort of stuff they would have chosen any of the other appointments including RD.
His friend says that his friend thinks that something should be done about the roster and the quality of the courses, but he thinks he will probably wait until the poor b******d at TDT with obviously nothing to do, gets it wrong and then he can send bollocky messages about how crap he is.
Personally, I think my other friend is right, he thinks the trade should be scrapped, he says its full of work shy, pontificating whiners most of which possess laminated biff chits, who think the Corps owe them a living (with a couple of Azlan courses thrown in for good measure).
My friend reckons he'd like to replace all those incompetent bastards in Blandford who obviously play a lot of golf, and he would put it all right by November. Unfortunately, his kids are in a nice school, his wifes happy collecting the LOA, he still owes a few payments on his car and whats more, it would mean leaving the sanctity of his nice air conditioned server room and possibly having to stick his neck out and work for a living .
If the opinion is that this course is unnecessary, then what about taking the padding out, adding the rest onto the Yeomans course and training managers instead of potential Prima Donnas.
What is a super IS? Is he not a manager of IS personnel ? As well as an IT god! There are many people throughout the corps that believe that the trade is of no use. The times are changing ladies and gents, wake up and smell the cordite! we live in a world run by computers, who is going to operate those machines? you? isn't it about time we had a trade in the signals that shows this fact - oh we have, its the IS Op.
Don't slate the trade cos its here to stay whether we like it or not.
As for the training, are people naive enough to think that a complete set of courses can be created overnight . If people are unhappy with the state of, or the way a course is run then they should say so, by giving feedback and helping TDT create a better course for the supvr IS.
I was completely unaware that the AGC or RLC currently have a trade that specialise in CIS, or are you suggesting that CIS specialists should be in another Corps? If you are, shouldn't that be another Forum? Or are you suggesting that another Corps would never have failed 25% of a course?
The fact remains that none of the three failed any of the training objectives.
Also a statement made by a certain Col of MCM in June of last year to two of the three (with at least 60 witnesses)....'you will not be required to attend and pass any course in the Royal Signals to attain the rank of WO1'...that must have been a lie then.
Then there is the current CO of 16, who refuses to support the three (less it disrupts his own career no doubt)