The Blandford Three

Not open for further replies.
I know a little about this, in fact I know a lot about it. What I find irritating is the innacurate posting of gossip and the obvious lack of knowledge of many who are posting views on this subject. Some facts:

1. The WO2 in question was at some pains to defend and protect the interests of all 3 unfortunates, he was utterly professional in his approach. If there was a personality clash it was one way and with one candidate and in his imagination.

2. Candidates were selected for promotion subject to suitability to be employed as IS Supervisors. They were not boarded for RD vacancies and may therefore not occupy an RD slot without running to the appropriate board.

3. Each and every candidate was briefed personally on the reasons for the failures not being announced until the final day of the course. If they say otherwise then they have to deal with their own concsience as they are blatantly lying or practising selective listening.

4. This is a roster which is at the Genesis of an ascendency which will in my opinion see it overtake eclipse and subsume the YofS roster, sorry mafioso, but you better invite them in because they are your future.

5. It has been the aim of all concerned to properly establish this roster and accord it due credibility. In order to do this it has to be as stringent in the methods by which suitable candidates are selected to it. In common with the other rosters an IS Supvr is not a super operator. A FofS is not a super tech and the YofS and Radio Supvers are not asuper operators. To be a supervisor you nedd to be an all rounder with firm knowledege and good trade foundation. But leadership, command decisision making and planning skills are at the top of the list when the selection is done and are essential to pass a course.
mafioso said:
The 3 dudes that got de-selected will probably be happier as Staffies (I know I preferred being a full screw). Perhaps I am just being a bit blinkered.
Blinkered and possibly mad, better off as staffies? with no pay rise? possiblity of a lower pension? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
ChalknTalk...I will ensure I post the legal findings from the impending court action. That will enable us all to view the facts and make our own decisions.

I just wonder who will be called to act as the fall guy?
WFB, I remember when I was a kid there was this real annoying lad from just up the road, he had the most fantastic football, it was real leather, not a scuff on it, well to be honest the only reason we invited him to play was because of that ball. I can always remember the rest of us used to let him score a goal every time we played, you see if we didn’t he used to take his ball back, so we couldn’t play..................... It wasn’t you was it??
WFB... in preparation for your day in court make sure that you are clear about the differences between objectivity and subjectivity.
MY day in court??? I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.
Here here chalkntalk, good words about the roster!

I do however feel that you missed the thread slightly. The main concern from most is that these guys were selected for promotion, which invloves (as I am sure you know) drinks in the mess, lots of pats on the back and all the other complimentary stuff. Then these guys go on a course and then return to face thier collegues and say that they have been de-selected, lift them high then crash them down in morale terms!

I, and I think most people I know have never heard of people being selcted from years of CRs etc then being de-selected because of a course. After many years of service I had never seen it happen and hope never to again.

This was particulary bad management and I can only feel sorrow for the poor fellows who must have gone from morale factor +100 to morale factor -100 overnight.

As to the course, is getting some feedback during a course not too much to ask for, especilly one as career critical as this?
While I can not argue with most things bullshit said, is it not true that on the promotion board the IS Ops where caveated that they would only be promoted on successful completion of the IS Supervisor course?
WFB....Sorry when I had you down for a day in court it was as a spectator not as a complainant. You are clearly an ambulance chaser or the worst kind of barrack room lawyer who does not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story. There is a swiss pen knife, with your name engraved on it, equipped with six wooden spoon attachments and awaiting pick up at the Corps Museum, do pick it up! :cry:

Bulshitter....I beg to differ mon brave I have not misssed the point of the thread at all. There were good management reasons for the final results of the course being held until the last day and this was explained to each and every student on the day they were given their results. It was not seen by any one on the staff at RSS as an easy decision but was done for good considered reasons. :cry:

Poisoned Dwarf.... Once again you are party to misreported facts. each of the Blandford 3 were given feedback following their failures on elements of the course and warned that they were on the equivalent of a yellow card. :cry:

To all watching this string....It is obvious that the vast majority of you do not understand the promotion Board system. All promotion is subject to continued recommendation within the promotion year. Failure of a qualifying course implicitly debars those selected for promotion. For those who say they have never seen this before then you are not taking account of the many unfortunates over the years who have failed to attend or attended and failed either the RSCC or the RSSCC you will find that they have subsequently been deselected for promotion. Guys if you are going to enter this very useful and illuminating debate then be clear about your ground please. :idea:
Chalkntalk, I do appreciate, as I am sure we all do, you giving us the opportunity to hear your version of events that lead up to the deselection of the Blandford 3. Now that you have completed this task I am sure that you will equally appreciate that we will draw our own conclusions.

One question does remain, and I value your opinion on this matter, is to how several reporting officers over a number of years and MCM got it so wrong?
I have tried to follow this thread with interest, unfortunately it doesnt seem to be going anywhere constructive?

Anyway, a few thoughts crossed my mind which I wanted to share.

1. Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
2. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

3. A closed mouth gathers no foot.
4. Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
5. There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

No 5 is specifically pertinent. Some people need to get out more!!
WFB.... Its nice to be appreciated, by the way this is not a version of the truth. I am reporting the facts, of which I understand your reluctance to accept because then there will be no oxygen for your pyromania. :oops:

As to the answer to your last remaining question, simple really. Every year there is a filter in Glasgow which selects people to go forward for the FofS, YofS and Supvr (R) selection Boards. They all have a raft of reports recommending them for promotion and training in their respective rosters and they have all appeared above the promotion line. Interestingly they do not all get selected to attend the course. Why because when people are given the opportunity to present evidence themselves on their own capabilities the selection boards find that they often present a different more accurate picture of those capabilities. Some people confirm their paper score some people improve it and some people degrade it as a result of this process. The majority of those people who have come into contact with the system find it to be a fair effective, tried and tested system for selecting the most key members of the Corps' lifeblood, our supervisory ranks.

In sum if the Blandford three had the opportunity to appear before one of these Boards, as 23 candidates are doing this week, then they would not have been selected for training at this time. In fact if anything the system gave them an even better chance because they were assessed, following paper selection, over 9 weeks and found not to be ready to assume supervisor appointments. This against necessarily high objective and subjective selection criteria.

I do hope that helps to lift the scales from your eyes WFB and I do hope that the 3 return to Blandford for the selection next year, better prepared and achieve selection. Those attempting for the second or even third time have often been selected on subsequent showing. :roll:
ChalkNTalk, you quote "It was not seen by any one on the staff at RSS as an easy decision but was done for good considered reasons. "

Hmmm, now to look at this objectively, you are saying that RSS knew these guys had failed, but decided to withold it until the very end, ie, after the final piss up etc and after the other students gots their pass certificates, for, I presume a "career management reason". Now I am a simple man but I do have to think hard on why that would be. Would it not be easier on the guys to have slipped out without having to witness all of the other people on the course walking around with WO2 slides?

You replied to PoisonDwarf that they were given yellow cards for, I presume failing a module. Does Blandford still have the re-test scheme where you have one more go? If so, why bother re-testing if they were going to be failed on it anyway :?

Dark_Jade was right on the criteria, however Wibble did raise a good question... " how several reporting officers over a number of years and MCM got it so wrong?" Does this therefore mean we could scrap the CR system and just send everybody to RSS?? You could save milions and RSS of course can never be wrong :wink:

ChalkNTalk mentions credibility of the roster in his previous post. This sounds a like a veiled way of saying that RSS wanted to fail these guys to make a statement to the rest of the Corps, but maybe I am wrong (I certainly hope so in these new days of career management :?).

I will stick by what I said before, these guys were elevated very high and then dropped from a great height. The only thing that I could gain from observing this debacle is on a lesson on how not to treat your staff if you want them to work for you :!: I would be amazed if they didn't try suing the system for piss poor career management.
BS... now this string is going somewhere sensible. Please see my previous reply to WFB. It answers some of your questions. Of course all boards cannot take place in Blandford, the supervisor bds deal with approx 100 pers a year. Glasgow deals with the whole Corps, just not practical you see. :?

As to the chaps being raised high and dropped low, they all received a letter telling them that their promotion was provisional subject to passing the course. It appears they made an assumption that they were not entitled to make. :?

Cheap shot about Blandford being unable to get it wrong mon brave. Of course they can, so can you, so can I. No system is foolproof where the human factor is in play. But they do their best as you and all your colleagues do I hope. In this case there was, I am told, consultation between RSS MCM and the Unit nothing was done in a rush and everything was considered. The Blandford 3's biggest champion in this process was the poor old WO2 who is taking a shoeing in this string. :cry:

Last and very important so not least.... On a long course (YofS, FofS)students are interviewed after each term and warned if they are going off the rails, so plenty of time for feedback. On a 9 week course that luxury is not available. I have it on good authority that 2 of the students were marginal and did not pass until the the final presentation day. Thus every single opportunity was taken to assess and give the benefit of the doubt to all. If RSS had been cavalier then the Blandford 3 could have been the Blandford 5. The culture at RSS is train in not select out they are not in the business of making an example of people by failing them for the sake of it. The Corps needs supervisors to fill empty posts, it is not in the business of shooting itself in the foot :wink:

The decision on when to announce the failures was, I am told, the most difficult of all. As the final pass marks only came on the last formal day and the end of course Guest night was taking place that evening what would it have done to the course to lose those three at that point. They had worked hard and I am told are all considered to be first class operators, though not ready to be supervisors. It was considered the gentlest thing to let everyone enjoy the end of course dinner and deliver the hard news on the Friday. The three were informed first to allow them to get away quickly. Hard decision and I don't envy those who had to make it. :cry:

As to suing I am not sure they have grounds but there is a redress system which they have a right to invoke and I for one would defend their right to resort to it as an option. :!:
surely if youdont pass the courses required then you shouldnt get promoted, or are we turning into the Int Corps here?
I think the long and short of it is that these guys should not have been selected for promotion until AFTER an IS supvr course thereby keeping it simple.

What was wrong was that they were selected for promotion, sent on a second from pilot course and then demoted. This is unfair on the individual and also unfair on RSS to be given this pressure so quickly and with so few recourses (ie, quote ChalkNTalk, without the luxury of being able to back-brief regularly).

Unfortunatle not until a proper selection process has been in place for a good while and RSS are given the recourses to run a proper course with staff who have also been through the same process will it be fair, until then expect casulaties.
BS and Lied2....

Once again they were not selected for promotion they were selected for promotion subject to passing the course..they didn't they were informed of this condition on the original promotion signal and by personal letter. :cry:

Col MCM was correct when he told the DS1 fraternity that they would not need to pass any other courses in order to be promoted to WO1. But as you so rightly point out these people were in DS1 posts not Supvr posts therefore the only way to be promoted without a course is on the RD roster. If they wish to apply to be supervisor's and they were invited to do so voluntarily not compelled to then they must abide by the selection criteria for that roster :cry:
The standards for the course are I assume set in a number of RSTOs - nothing unusual or unreasonable there.

The unfortunate 3 did not meet the standard set within the RSTOs and ultimately failed - nothing unusual or unreasonable there.

It would appear from what I have read in this Forum that the pers in question attended the course knowing that if they pass they would be promoted - nothing unusual there - we do this with all YofS & FofS.

Over the years many potential YofS & FofS have failed their respective course and have been sent on their merry way without the rank they would have been wearing if they had completed the course. The majority of these individuals will have also spent considerably more than 9 weeks in the centre of excellence.

YofS Cse 48 has the honour of having someone told they had failed on the last day - having spent over a year in Blandford ! Can't imagine he was that impressed but the bottom line remains he did not make the grade !

If as previously stated in this thread they were told they had to pass the course to be promoted then I would say they do not have that much to go on - they should surely just take it on the chin and get on with their lives - they were not good enough !

Statements about personality clashes etc........ can start to smell of sour grapes.

I applaud the efforts to put some credibility to the IS roster and to get a proper structure for you lot including more Traffic IS posts within the LE community.

However some of you appear to be in danger of starting up the CIS Trade Union spending more time whinging about how hard you've had it because a few of your mates were not up to scratch.

Come on ! Stop whinging ! Accept the efforts being made to give you a career structure ! Accept that not every geek has what it takes to be in a supervisory position - and hurry up and get those servers built and out on the exercise !

P:S - I use the word geek as a tem of endearment not an insult before you start moaning about that ! !
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Royal Signals 14
Mitch99 Royal Signals 5
PapaGolf Royal Signals 30

Similar threads

Latest Threads