The Undercover Soldier

[Weston Super Saint]

Anyone else watching this?

 

What a load of bollix.

 

These guys are being trained to go to war and kill people, I would have thought / expected a little bit of rough and tumble to be part and parcel of the training.....

[Um Bongo]

No, i'm watching 8 minutes to disaster on C4. Always intresting to watch other emergency services at work.

[Poshie72]

Started watching this last night, switched off after about 30 mins as it was so boring

[StuRomseySaint]

Any 'soldier' who claims they are being bullied is a complete loser and should be kicked out of the Army anyway.

 

That programme was so biassed anyway, he was just desperately trying to find a story to justify his 6 months in the army.

 

For example, the story about one of the NCO's knocking out one of the recruits in retaliation to the recruit trying to hit the Corporal. The programme tried to portray that as bullying, yet it was the recruit who threw the first punch.

 

It didn't mention that if the Corporal had gone down the official line rather than give him a slap then the recruit would have being doing 28 - 60 days prison in the glasshouse. Would you rather take a relatively tame kicking or spend up to two months in jail? I know what I would pick.

 

The Army nowadays is so stupidly politically correct due to do-gooders who know nothing about what is required when in the Army. For that reason we will no doubt soon lose our reputation as the best fighting force in the world.

[Rory]

I watched it all and thought it was brilliant. One of the best documentaries I've seen for a while.

 

How can you justify a corporal p*ssing on you while you're training?

[Weston Super Saint]

I watched it all and thought it was brilliant. One of the best documentaries I've seen for a while.

 

How can you justify a corporal p*ssing on you while you're training?

 

There's clearly something not quite right with the individual that did that, and something is obviously needed to be done about it.

 

BUT, a little bit of rough and tumble to prepare these people for WAR is only right isn't it? Heaven forbid they get captured by the bad guys..... I bet they might get a lot worse then....

[saintkiptanui]

It was terrible, on noes a private was punched.

[Rory]

I think the MoD should be more worried about how easy it was for the reporter to go undercover, using hidden cameras and mobile phones and not get caught.

[Weston Super Saint]

I think the MoD should be more worried about how easy it was for the reporter to go undercover, using hidden cameras and mobile phones and not get caught.

 

I get the feeling we saw ALL of the footage he managed to scrape together during the program.

 

Which would amount to what, about 15 minutes of recording over 6 months....

[Hatch]

Hasn't that reporter committed some sort of offence?

 

Surely, anyone else would be looking at 10 yrs inside if he was caught secretly filming in MOD premises.

[Barney Trubble]

Well if he can't take a good kicking with good grace then he shouldn't be in the Army.

 

What the hell is wrong with these people who join the Army?

 

It's there to toughen people up, both mentally and physically and to condition them to fight wars for ****s sake.

 

Do they seriously think that an enemy is not going to give him and other wimps a good kicking if they caught him? Or does he think they put him in a nice warm room and give him a copy of the geneva convention and other nonsense that actually counts for nothing in the heat of the battle?

 

If you join the Armed Forces then expect a good kicking if you are a wimp, the kicking is to toughen you up, wimps and PC'ness have no place in the Armed Forces and that loon is better off out so he can work in an office or something, photocopying paper and stapling them together.

 

Having said all that, lines have to be drawn and that line is where it gets to the point of humiliation, as in ****ing on people. I'd happily get kicked out of the Army than have some Corporal ****ing on me. I'd be prepared to go to the point of no return at stuff like that but fighting is just part of the training.

[Thedelldays]

Any 'soldier' who claims they are being bullied is a complete loser and should be kicked out of the Army anyway.

 

That programme was so biassed anyway, he was just desperately trying to find a story to justify his 6 months in the army.

 

For example, the story about one of the NCO's knocking out one of the recruits in retaliation to the recruit trying to hit the Corporal. The programme tried to portray that as bullying, yet it was the recruit who threw the first punch.

 

It didn't mention that if the Corporal had gone down the official line rather than give him a slap then the recruit would have being doing 28 - 60 days prison in the glasshouse. Would you rather take a relatively tame kicking or spend up to two months in jail? I know what I would pick.

 

The Army nowadays is so stupidly politically correct due to do-gooders who know nothing about what is required when in the Army. For that reason we will no doubt soon lose our reputation as the best fighting force in the world.

 

 

I agree with that stu...it was an embarrassment to watch

[ecuk268]

I thought it was pathetic. The level of "bullying" was less than we used to get when I was at school in the 60's.

 

There were many teachers who wouldn't think twice about giving you a whack around the ear. Not allowed now unfortunately.

[scott_saints]

I laso agree with Stu. It was f00king embarrasing I tell thee.

 

Although, it did reinforce my opinion that the army has a significant population of thick people who didn't know what else to do (jobwise) so decided to shoot the "ragheads" for money.

[Thedelldays]

I laso agree with Stu. It was f00king embarrasing I tell thee.

 

Although, it did reinforce my opinion that the army has a significant population of thick people who didn't know what else to do (jobwise) so decided to shoot the "ragheads" for money.

fair point...BUT, they just make up a (probably large) percentage of the average combat units....combat units count for about 1/5 of the whole army..

 

you would be suprised on how many technical and highly skilled jobs there are within the armed forces...but joe public just hears about basic squaddies...

 

the "thickos" you refer to, do exists but are easily in the minority in todays armed forces...

[scott_saints]

fair point...BUT, they just make up a (probably large) percentage of the average combat units....combat units count for about 1/5 of the whole army..

 

you would be suprised on how many technical and highly skilled jobs there are within the armed forces...but joe public just hears about basic squaddies...

 

the "thickos" you refer to, do exists but are easily in the minority in todays armed forces...

True. When I think army I think typical battlefield combat units.

 

Out of the 4 people I know quite well who joined the army, 3 are absolute thick c**ts who know nothing but fighting. But I suppose these are the types that would never progress into the more skilled jobs.

[Thedelldays]

True. When I think army I think typical battlefield combat units.

 

Out of the 4 people I know quite well who joined the army, 3 are absolute thick c**ts who know nothing but fighting. But I suppose these are the types that would never progress into the more skilled jobs.

indeed....in training or in the early parts of their careers, those "thickos" who want to be within a more "skilled" trade are often encouraged away and to something else, the thickos that make it to a skilled trade tend not to progress too quickly...

 

my job for example is quite highly skilled both technically and physically and many are weeded out....

that is another reason why I laugh at those who moan at forces pay, the ones who do are the "thickos" who have NO responsibility and have a job where they run around alot and have a very low technical level...

 

you get paid accordingly in the armed forces....and MOST (not all) get paid quite well

[StuRomseySaint]

indeed....in training or in the early parts of their careers, those "thickos" who want to be within a more "skilled" trade are often encouraged away and to something else, the thickos that make it to a skilled trade tend not to progress too quickly...

 

my job for example is quite highly skilled both technically and physically and many are weeded out....

that is another reason why I laugh at those who moan at forces pay, the ones who do are the "thickos" who have NO responsibility and have a job where they run around alot and have a very low technical level...

 

you get paid accordingly in the armed forces....and MOST (not all) get paid quite well

 

 

With respect, you are Navy, and not the Army, 'danger' wise, there is no comparrison.

 

2 of my old platoon have died in Iraq, 3 more seriously injured.

 

Most battalions on the frontline in Iraq lose around 20 lads either by death or seriously injured on a 6 month tour, depending on their duties. That equates to about a 1 in 25 lads w chance of getting killed or seriously injured in them 6 months... you tell me another job which is more dangerous.

 

Now I don't campaign for better pay for them, everyone who joins the Army knows why they are doing it. I never looked at the Army as a long-term career, I joined because I didn't want to doss about in College and Uni, and wanted to experience some things which otherwise I would never be able to. I knew the pay and accepted it. What I do object to is other public sectors going on strike demanding more pay, especially the fire service who think that they warranted more than double an Infantry Soldier on the basis that their job was 'dangerous' .

 

Now if the fire service could provide stats to show that they have a 1 in 25 chance of getting killed or seriously injured within a 6 month period then they are welcome to the pay rise.

 

The whole 'thicko' thing about the infantry is a load of ******** as well. Yes the entry tests are not all that academic, but there is a high level of academic skill needed in the Army, whether it be simply operating a weapon ( anyone who thinks that you just point and shoot is naive ) , map reading ( not in the look at a street map sense ) , advanced first aid, intelligence suspect recognition, armoured vehicle driving, radio procedure, marksmanship principles, NBC training, Drill, Mine Clearance, operating various complexed electronic weapons, communications and navigation systems, artillary etc etc...

 

They are just some of the BASIC roles of which ALL Infantry Soldiers need to be fully conversant with, it's not a choice, it's a must, and not being able to do these correctly could result are a matter of life or death in most cases.

 

I wonder if the ghey twin could possibly kill himself or someone else if he pres Ctrl + Delete the wrong way round?

 

Yes the Infantry of yesteryear was not a complexed job and anyone with half a brain could do it, but nowadays with the technologies which are used by our Infantry on a daily basis whilst on operational tours, 'thickos' rarely make it through training.

 

The training nowadays is 5 months, in them 5 months there are many, many theory tests which require alot of study and hours of revision, if you don't pass them, you don't pass out, simple as that.

 

Even once you are in your battalion you still have your ACT's ( Annual Compulsary Tests ) , if you don't pass them, then you don't go home on the weekends until you have passed, and you don't go on operations until you have passed, if you keep failing then you are disciplined, if you still keep failing, you are booted out.

 

The 'thickos' which you talk of, rarely make it through Catterick nowadays.

[scott_saints]

The whole 'thicko' thing about the infantry is a load of ******** as well. Yes the entry tests are not all that academic, but there is a high level of academic skill needed in the Army, whether it be simply operating a weapon ( anyone who thinks that you just point and shoot is naive ) , map reading ( not in the look at a street map sense ) , advanced first aid, intelligence suspect recognition, armoured vehicle driving, radio procedure, marksmanship principles, NBC training, Drill, Mine Clearance, operating various complexed electronic weapons, communications and navigation systems, artillary etc etc...

 

They are just some of the BASIC roles of which ALL Infantry Soldiers need to be fully conversant with, it's not a choice, it's a must, and not being able to do these correctly could result are a matter of life or death in most cases.

 

I wonder if the ghey twin could possibly kill himself or someone else if he pres Ctrl + Delete the wrong way round?

 

Yes the Infantry of yesteryear was not a complexed job and anyone with half a brain could do it, but nowadays with the technologies which are used by our Infantry on a daily basis whilst on operational tours, 'thickos' rarely make it through training.

 

The training nowadays is 5 months, in them 5 months there are many, many theory tests which require alot of study and hours of revision, if you don't pass them, you don't pass out, simple as that.

 

Even once you are in your battalion you still have your ACT's ( Annual Compulsary Tests ) , if you don't pass them, then you don't go home on the weekends until you have passed, and you don't go on operations until you have passed, if you keep failing then you are disciplined, if you still keep failing, you are booted out.

 

The 'thickos' which you talk of, rarely make it through Catterick nowadays.

No, in my job I couldn't kill someone if I had ctrl + delete the wrong way round. I don't really plan on getting such a job either.

 

On to the "thickos"..... You have made it seem like I've labelled ALL people who go in the army as thick. I merely pointed out that there is a SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT of these types of people (didn't know what to do, so went in the army)

 

You also mentioned the tests etc that you need to do, but that wasn't really the sort of "thick" I meant. I know a few people in the army, and they may be educationally clever but 3 out of the 4 of them are c**ts who love to fight- before they went in the army and still now. I count them as thick, although a written test may not show this. All I'm saying is there seems to be quite alot of these types.

[Thedelldays]

the stereotypical "thicko" i think we are all on about are generally in the intfantry type jobs and (wrongly) they get the most of the press ATM regardless if they are the main battle group in afghan or not..

 

It is quite tedious when the press use the term "squaddie" when talking about the forces in general....I even know people in the army that hate it as the term "squaddie" makes the average civvy think of an intfantryman..

Edited 19 September, 2008 by Thedelldays

[Hatch]

In the paper today it says the MOD are considering recalling the journalist and make him finish his stint with a 6 month tour of Afghanistan.

 

How funny would that be!

[Weston Super Saint]

In the paper today it says the MOD are considering recalling the journalist and make him finish his stint with a 6 month tour of Afghanistan.

 

How funny would that be!

 

They also said - on the program - that he was a 'model' recruit and they didn't want him to leave.

 

I wonder if secretly he enjoyed his time??

[Viking Warrior]

I too watched this programme.

 

I was appalled how biased it was. there were some key points I picked up on

 

Firstly how did he manage to infilitrate the system without being found out.

Normally the army is pretty strict on its vetting procedures. after all a number of ira members managed to join the army in the 70's until someone cottoned on that the IRA seemed to cotton on to the tactics the army were using in NI.

 

The reporter was moaning about not being allowed home during his initial training but others were. Now there are two phases to training basic and then the trained soldier bit.

 

During basic training when you are taught to march etc you are not normally allowed out for the first 6 weeks or so. The programme did not reflect the true picture of basic training.

 

The most worrying thing for me how ever was that he always seemed to be asking questions about bullying fronm a variety of recruits at various stages of their training. How did he manage to have so much time to do that when he should have been with his squad doing jhis uniform, parades room inspections etc. And surely those he was asking questions of must have been suspisicious. Any normal recruit would be talking about everything but bullying.

 

Sorry the Army is so Pc that even if you shouted at a recruit they would be hauled before the platoon commander. Also recruits are given yellow and red cards to hold up, similar to a referee if the instructor is being over zealous.

[StuRomseySaint]

 

Sorry the Army is so Pc that even if you shouted at a recruit they would be hauled before the platoon commander. Also recruits are given yellow and red cards to hold up, similar to a referee if the instructor is being over zealous.

 

That is the thing that amazes me the most. Even 12 years ago, there was none of that, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.

 

When I was in training, I was a gobby 16 year old straight from school, and I was fookin stubborn with it. The idea of basic training is to effectively 'break' the recruit and wash out all of their civilian attitudes and cultures, then they can begin the process of building you into a soldier.

 

Because of me being a stubborn c*nt and always having the 'stiff upper lip' attitude and not willing to be 'broken', I got treated more harshly than those who balled their eyes out in the first week, whether it be kidney punches, slaps, being left in the CS chamber without respirator, extra duties, being pushed harder in PT etc. They would all be described as 'bullying' nowadays, whereas nobody in the Army saw it that way when I was training in 1996.

 

The idea of red and yellow cards is quite frankly embarrasing nowadays. When I completed my training, I was proud of the fact I was one of less than 10% who passed out of Infantry training based on the numbers that applied to get it initially at the careers office.

 

Nowadays any mug can walk in and get through training, which no doubt means that sooner rather than later, we will lose our label as one of/ if not THE best fighting force in the world, man for man.

[Robsk II]

Only 10% completed basic? I was gonna say, my understanding is that basic isn't all that bad. Just shut up, head down, get on.

[OldNick]

sooner rather than later, we will lose our label as one of/ if not THE best fighting force in the world, man for man.

that happened when Blair shamelessly did a deal to let our army out of Basra without coming under attack.The Iraqis now call the Yanks and not us because they reckon we are not dependable.That's politicians for you, wiping years/decades/centuries of respect away in one move.

[Robsk II]

nickh, regardless of this incident - I would say that it's pointless just being "the way we always were" and so on. The army must change to be considered 'the best fighting force' yadda yadda, because the world is different. It's changed, fundamentally, even from 20 years ago. Media coverage and so on is such now that leaders MUST do things to be seen to be safeguarding their troops for the civvies. No longer can so many things be glossed over, brushed under the table. Like when the yank soldiers raped and murdered that whole family a few years back. It would not always have been found out, and the reputation of US troops at the time would ahve been damaged locally, primarily, but not internationally. **** always happens as a result of troops being dicks, but Mai lai was a seachange and it's only getting more that way. In truth, of course - troops shouldn't be doing these things, so in that regard, it's a positive. But armies have to be seen to be squeaky clean these days, which may, in pragmatic terms, constrain their efficiency as a force - certainly if they try to act within the paramters of yesteryear.

[OldNick]

nickh, regardless of this incident - I would say that it's pointless just being "the way we always were" and so on. The army must change to be considered 'the best fighting force' yadda yadda, because the world is different. It's changed, fundamentally, even from 20 years ago. Media coverage and so on is such now that leaders MUST do things to be seen to be safeguarding their troops for the civvies. No longer can so many things be glossed over, brushed under the table. Like when the yank soldiers raped and murdered that whole family a few years back. It would not always have been found out, and the reputation of US troops at the time would ahve been damaged locally, primarily, but not internationally. **** always happens as a result of troops being dicks, but Mai lai was a seachange and it's only getting more that way. In truth, of course - troops shouldn't be doing these things, so in that regard, it's a positive. But armies have to be seen to be squeaky clean these days, which may, in pragmatic terms, constrain their efficiency as a force - certainly if they try to act within the paramters of yesteryear.

yes thats true but it is odd when you see them saying they want to leave as they are being shot at. Or more appalling they give up to the Iranians and then sell their story to the Mirror

[StuRomseySaint]

Only 10% completed basic? I was gonna say, my understanding is that basic isn't all that bad. Just shut up, head down, get on.

 

Only 10% of people who initially went in to the careers office and said 'I want to be an infantry soldier' ever made it to battalion.

 

People fell away in more things than basic training, such as..

 

BARB Test ( Initial Academic Test )

Initial Medical

Recruit Selection Course

Phase 1 training.

Infantry Soldier Training

 

etc

 

Certainly when I was in, only 10% of applicants ever made it all the way through to battalion.

 

As for the squeeky clean image, it's ironic that the people that say there is no problem in the Army are the people such as myself who have been there and done it. Some poxy biased documentry hardly shows what is needed in training, nor does Bad Lads Army, any newspaper report etc.

 

How many ex-soldiers have come out and said they have felt bullied etc? The percentage probably equates to about 0.001% of those discharging, and those people are generally the 'weaker' ones.

 

The fact is that, whether you like it or not, Soldiers train to KILL, they are also trained to be mentally tough, as well as physically. If a soldier cannot handle a slap off their fullscrew, then how are they going to cope when their best mate has just been shot, could be saved if they stopped and retreated, but have to leave them to certain death and carry on and battle the enemy?

 

The fact is the ones who are slapped and kick up a stink should be booted out of the Army, they are more of a liability than any other soldier on the battle field, it is the weak ones who cost lives.

 

Yes, some things are inappropriate, if my section commander ****ed on me in the Army then I would kick seven barrels out of him, however the slapping etc is part of the Army and is usually the 'unofficial' way of dealing for things.

 

For example, once when we were due to go to Canada on exercise, I turned up 2 hours late for duty. Now the official line would have been to charge me, which could involve anything up to 28 days in prison.

 

I walked in to camp with everyone else packed and ready to go ( the bird I had been ****ging really wasn't worth it ) , now did my platoon sgt charge me?

 

No.... he gave me 2 options. Body or Head punch. I chose body, was winded for a couple of minutes, and 5 minutes later we were mates again.

 

The same applied to the squaddie who initially threw a punch at that NCO in the programme, if the NCO had gone down the initial line then the recruit would have spent about 2 months in Military Prison before being booted out of the Army.

 

Which one would you choose?

 

 

 

People in the

[CabbageFace]

The army is for morons and thugs.

[scott_saints]

The army is for morons and thugs.

But, Stu used to be in the.....

 

 

Oh.

[Bath Saint]

A bit of 'rough and tumble' certainly toughened these guys (and gal) up...

 

 

Oh

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4058379.stm

[Robsk II]

As it happens - and as I always say, I am a pragmatist before an idealist - I for one totally understand and agree that the army training process is necessarily different in need to others. Some of the standard rules simplyt don't apply, and it should be clear that soldiers do need 'toughening up' physically and mentally to face the challenges they might. My only complaint is when these things go above and beyond what is acceptable. Of course that's subjective, which is where the problems lie. Anything with these gray areas is open and prone to abuse, as we have seen.

 

In the same way that the world and political climate has changed, so has the population of Britain. New recruits are, in my opinion, quite a lot less likely to be able to look after themselves in a situation outside of what constitutes a norm for them. Believe it or not, if I joined up, I have a feeling I'd do a whole lot better than many - not because I'm older, but because, even at that age, I was wiser than mosty peple who join. Many young people - more than 10 or 20 years ago - have genuine problems taking responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them. Problems with social integration. Problems with authority. Etc etc etc. Whether we like it or not, the training system has to change as a result, even if that means mollycoddling a few a bit more than was once needed. You have to train groups at the speed of the slowest learner, as it were, if you can't kick them out, anyway. Getting young men and women today to the point where they are ready for active service probably does need to be approached differently, in terms of approach with them and approach with how this is presented to the public - as well as with expectation in terms of timescale and end result. You could certainly argue that one suicide in the army due to bullying is not acceptable, and there are more than that. Also, it's not valid to say that it's all part and parcel for recruits to systematically bully one person over a period of time- it's this kind of thing that I do think needs stopping. I'm sure it's a difficult call to make, because sometimes leaving it might well end up with good results, forcing people to stand up for themselves etc. Equally, most PT trainers are not psychologists, or counsellors, or anything else professionally qualified to make that kind of call - which is never really safe anyway.

 

Many people could take 'a slap', and would gladly do so over time peeling potatos.. the problem is that in this world - again, whether we like it or not - some things are indeed "OVER" PC (though again, it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, not in generalisations and sweeping statements), and often paperwork and policy demands that we reassess and change the way we do things. The paperwork and gumpf is always meant for a good reason - to stop abuses of power, to stop stupid use of grey areas, to protect those that need it. As usual, though, there are times when it just gets in the way, and times when it can be directly harmful to a process. You have to ask the question, I suppose - which system causes the most harm, and which causes the most benefit - and what are the trade-offs? These are the only thing that matter. Bottom line for me is that the army may always need to use some tough methods, and rightly so. But there SHOULD be public outcry or consequences and so on if genuine abuses go on.

[Viking Warrior]

Cabbage face

your comments re the army is for morons and thugs is well ard.

 

I bet you wouldnt have the balls to say it face to face to a para, an infantry soldier or even any of the support services.

 

Im still serving though now with the TA , but I have did 25 years regular service before that. And I have seen my fair share of mutilation in one form or another. Being a Medic and all that. I work as part of team preparing our doctors and Nurses going out to warmer climates. I wouldnt not call them morons or thugs . Similarly the boys doing the real work in Iraq and afghan are neither thugs or morons but switched on well trained soldeirs who look after each other. Doesnt matter what cap badge , there is mutual respect for each other.

 

So unles you are a wind up merchant , do your home work first before comming out with such ridiculous statements about morons and thugs you cretin

[Robsk II]

Draganov, I'd take anything anyone on here says with a pinch of salt. To be honest, that old "say it to the face" stuff isn't going to help either, it's a fairly weak defence. Ultimately, of course he was on a wind-up, but on the other hand, the pongos have long had a reputation for being of a somewhat more.. angry disposition and more neanderthal intelligence on average than that of the population at large. Not many people would say that this isn't a trend. The stereotype exists for a reason, as most do. Clearly, most stereotypes are also not a fair representation of a whole group, and can be outdated and so on. Equally, most recognise that if we have an army, some people need to be infantry, and there are some people who fill that role better than others, as are there some who fulfil medic, officer etc roles better than others. If an infantryman joined up at 16, it's fair to suggest he may at the very least be less educated than his social peers, and also - of a somewhat different mindset and with different values and views. I'm not implying worse. Just different. Defend the rank and file, by all means, but do it with honesty and rationale rather than whether or not someone would win in a fight.

Edited 23 September, 2008 by Robsk II

[hypochondriac]

Cabbage face

your comments re the army is for morons and thugs is well ard.

 

I bet you wouldnt have the balls to say it face to face to a para, an infantry soldier or even any of the support services.

 

Im still serving though now with the TA , but I have did 25 years regular service before that. And I have seen my fair share of mutilation in one form or another. Being a Medic and all that. I work as part of team preparing our doctors and Nurses going out to warmer climates. I wouldnt not call them morons or thugs . Similarly the boys doing the real work in Iraq and afghan are neither thugs or morons but switched on well trained soldeirs who look after each other. Doesnt matter what cap badge , there is mutual respect for each other.

 

So unles you are a wind up merchant , do your home work first before comming out with such ridiculous statements about morons and thugs you cretin

 

I would say that's a pretty accurate assumption, and you obviously do not come here often!

[StuRomseySaint]

If an infantryman joined up at 16, it's fair to suggest he may at the very least be less educated than his social peers, and also - of a somewhat different mindset and with different values and views.

 

You must be taking the p!ss Robsk, surely?

 

See this is one of the main reasons that I cannot stand students, who seem to think that because they went to College/Uni, they are more 'educated' than others who chose to do different jobs.

 

Education is not only available at Uni, it is available in all walks of life, and someone who has not been to Uni is not less educated than someone who has.

 

To be an Infantry Soldier nowadays there is an intensive 5 month course, the hours put in by the recruit in them 5 months will easiliy match how many hours a student would put in to a 2 year course.

 

Then not to mention once in battalion, the almost daily lessons, lectures, exercise etc.

 

And not to mention the months of constant training that goes in to preparing for an operational tour.

 

Not to mention Annual Compulsory Tests

 

Now people learn their 'education' in different ways, an Electrician will learn his on the job, s Salesman will progress on the job, a Soldier will be subject to months of intense training.

 

To try and say that someone who joins the Army at 16 is less educated is completely naive and the typical arrogance of a studet / ex-student.

 

Put my experiences by the age of 21 and yours, then we will see what 'education' is ginge.

[CabbageFace]

Cabbage face

your comments re the army is for morons and thugs is well ard.

 

I bet you wouldnt have the balls to say it face to face to a para, an infantry soldier or even any of the support services.

 

Im still serving though now with the TA , but I have did 25 years regular service before that. And I have seen my fair share of mutilation in one form or another. Being a Medic and all that. I work as part of team preparing our doctors and Nurses going out to warmer climates. I wouldnt not call them morons or thugs . Similarly the boys doing the real work in Iraq and afghan are neither thugs or morons but switched on well trained soldeirs who look after each other. Doesnt matter what cap badge , there is mutual respect for each other.

 

So unles you are a wind up merchant , do your home work first before comming out with such ridiculous statements about morons and thugs you cretin

 

Moron.

[Viking Warrior]

Cabbage face

 

Clearly you are somebody of high intelligence who was or is studying at either

at cambridge or Oxford.

No doubt taking a degree in how to con the public purse with your dissertation in how do I claim my benefits without being caught

 

For Your information the definition of a moron is as follows

 

"a former term for somebody with significant learning difficulties and impaired social skills, now considered offensive"

 

So if you want to call me names then use something more appropriate and no I am not a female genitalia either.

 

What Line of work are you in then Cabbage? Im not going to brag but I do have a Masters degree in Employment law (Leicester Uni) and a personnel managemnt Degree)

 

Robsk

 

I agree with your sentiments about some 16 year olds being in the Army and many have become very good lads, but the same thing can be said of the Navy. Many years back the navy would take almost anyone in society.

Trouble is todays Navy do not have enough ships or submarines to accomodate some of these wayward lads.

 

One success story for the Navy must be the way they have turned around Dell days to become a fine pillor of society.

 

If Your a Blue Job Robsk then you have my sympathy All PC elemnt of that branch of the Armed Forces

[CabbageFace]

Cabbage face

 

Clearly you are somebody of high intelligence who was or is studying at either

at cambridge or Oxford.

No doubt taking a degree in how to con the public purse with your dissertation in how do I claim my benefits without being caught

 

For Your information the definition of a moron is as follows

 

"a former term for somebody with significant learning difficulties and impaired social skills, now considered offensive"

 

So if you want to call me names then use something more appropriate and no I am not a female genitalia either.

 

What Line of work are you in then Cabbage? Im not going to brag but I do have a Masters degree in Employment law (Leicester Uni) and a personnel managemnt Degree)

 

 

Im in the Army. No seriously, im a Civil Engineer and a moron. Currently studying my degree type thing.

Edited 24 September, 2008 by CabbageFace

[Robsk II]

To try and say that someone who joins the Army at 16 is less educated is completely naive and the typical arrogance of a studet / ex-student.

 

Put my experiences by the age of 21 and yours, then we will see what 'education' is ginge.

 

Stu, if you wish to discuss things, try to avoid getting into personal attacks. We both know I'm not actually ginger, I'm not sure why you persist.

 

I know plenty of people in the forces, and recall plenty that joined at 16. My point is only that as a general rule, a lot of those that join up straight from school are the less academic types, or, perhaps, those who have had less opportunities or encouragement in the past. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, and plenty of people who simply want to be in the army anyway. But most will at least want to head towards officers rather than infantry, and I don't know how you can argue with this. I'm not even saying there is anything wrong with this. Again, we need people in the infantry, and some people are better suited to it than others, physically, mentally, etc. And Draganov, I'm aware this is also the case with the other areas of service. If you bothered to try to read what I'm saying rather than just taking it as an attack on the armed forces, you would understand better Stu. Plenty of people who have done service come out the other side all the better for it; probably a lot more than who get bullied to death. Many come out with experiences that have changed their lives positively, having seen and done good things they never would have otherwise. Many come out more qualified than they otherwise would have. More mature, more socially adjusted and responsible, etc. I know you'd love it if I was blinkered as to this debate, but I'm not.

 

Also, without knowing my life story, you're a little rash to assume you'd had ever such a better life than me by 21. Sure, I'd not served in the armed forces, but I'd done a whole lot more than most people by that age and seen a lot more of the world etc too. You served your country over an extended period, I represented mine. I did a whole lot of things that make me consider myself lucky. Care to devalue that? If I had a different path to you, you shouldn't judge it so easily. I have just as much contempt for people who've done nothing with their lives and then go to uni and **** about and get ****ed and be dicks and do little else. You're just as swift to promote your life choices over everyone elses as those people you seek to condemn are about theirs.