Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not relevant to the "Where after Chad?" thread in Overseas

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jessup
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    No its you thats saying a lad with a conviction for something like assault or affrey cannot make a good infantry soldier. When infact events like the Falklands showed such personalities often make the best combat soldiers.

    Once again you claim the BA has a lower standard, having qualifications does not make someone a good infantryman and to judge an infantrymans combat effectivness on intellectualism shows just how very different the BA and Irish army are in training ethos and their defined roles.

    Physically some in the Irish army dont look up to soldiering.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/OpsOffic...94013242612626


    http://picasaweb.google.com/OpsOffic...93083056904210
    I'm saying why take the risk? Unless it's needs must. If you had enough suitable applicants without criminal convictions then why in Gods name would you recruit a criminal instead of a non criminal. You recruit them because you have to, not because you choose to.

    Funny I knew you'd mention the Falklands and that goes to the essence of you problem. It's a different world now. The opposition isn't some terrified conscript, in another uniform where you can cut off their ears and keep them as souvenirs. It's not 1982 anymore, the modern world requires more sophisticated soldiering and less brute force and ignorance. More the RM ethos and less the Para ethos.

    I didn't mention intellectual prowess as a determinant of combat effectiveness. Even a complete thicko can have moral fibre and he's a better option than a smart thug. But there's the same point again. It's much more complex now than 'combat' skills and that goes the whole way down to the Pte soldier.

    Leave a comment:

  • Hello Alaska
    Closed Account

  • Hello Alaska
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    Standard of the troops ? you have overweight 55 yr old NCOs, please dont take the pee.
    There's overweight Brit NCO's posting on this very site and they're nowhere near 55.

    Please don't take the pee.

    There's bad apple's in both organisations, as I'm sure there is in militaries all over the world. These pissing contests really solve nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessup
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    Dont lecture on the ethnic make up of the BA, how many Poles and Nigerians are in the Irish army then ? The BA has numerous commonwealth soldiers. Considering one in 4 males in the UK has a criminal conviction, 8% when taken as part of a bigger stat is not that bad. So you expect me to believe BA officers slagged off there own men to you ?
    Poles and Nigerians are Polish and Nigerian, not Irish. I'm talking about British citizens who faces don't fit in BA and you know that's what I mean. It's been well documented by the BA themselves with certain regiments worse offenders than others. Why would an Army recruit foreign nationals instead of its own citizens? Are you trying to be like the French Foreign Legion?

    Leave a comment:

  • RoyalGreenJacket
    Commander in Chief

  • RoyalGreenJacket
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessup View Post
    The evidence is on your own website. http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...nalrecord.aspx The BA has had to resort to bottom feeding and other initiatives to try and fill it's recruitment quota a long time before Iraq and Afghanistan. The BA is still massively unrepresentative of the ethnic make up of the UK population.

    Left with such a limited pool to pick from it's inevitable that you are often forced to accept applicants that are far from suitable.

    limited pool to pick from?

    we are almost reaching full manning levels and now only 'Grade A' applicants (explained in other threads) are bing accepted into certain regiments.

    when i joined the British Army in 1989 - there were only 2 of us out of 6 from the Republic who passed selection and i'm pretty sure none of us were 'bottom feeders' as you put it.

    the British Army has the luxury of being able to recruit from the UK, the Republic of Ireland and 54 other independent states including Canada, Australia and New Zealand - so tell me how that is a 'limited pool'?

    seems only having 32 counties to recruit from is a pretty 'limited pool' compared to 56 countries.

    you are clutching at straws here Jessup - come back to me when you have something decent and credible to snipe at us about.

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied
    Originally posted by FoxtrotRK View Post
    With all due respect this is an Irish forum. If we were going over to Arrse and constantly harping on about the Defence Forces there you might have a point.


    Just posting defending the "poor standards" of the BA.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoxtrotRK
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    Its not about claiming the BA is superior, its role is totally different from the defence forces, the complexity of its operations in fast changing theatres means sometimes things will go wrong. You cant seriously compare Irish army 1 battalion UN ops with conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, your agenda is simply to denigrade the rep of the BA, partly I suspect due to the fact the Irish army never sees combat, hence the need to big it up by slagging the Brits.
    With all due respect this is an Irish forum. If we were going over to Arrse and constantly harping on about the Defence Forces there you might have a point.

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied
    Originally posted by concussion View Post
    If you don't have stats for the rates of prior convictions then you statement that 8% of the prison population are EX-servicemen doesn't, in fact, say it all about the standards of the troops. It may say a lot about how they are treated, both during service and afterwards but you can't use that figure to gauge the standard of those applying.


    Standard of the troops ? you have overweight 55 yr old NCOs, please dont take the pee.

    Leave a comment:

  • timhorgan
    Banned User

  • timhorgan
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessup View Post
    The evidence is on your own website. http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...nalrecord.aspx The BA has had to resort to bottom feeding and other initiatives to try and fill it's recruitment quota a long time before Iraq and Afghanistan. The BA is still massively unrepresentative of the ethnic make up of the UK population. Left with such a limited pool to pick from it's inevitable that you are often forced to accept applicants that are far from suitable.

    The evidence is futher substantiated by the fact that 8% of the prison population in the UK are ex services?

    So what about the recruit fitness and training if the individual is of poor character. That very training and fitness is going to produce a far more difficult problem to deal with later either inside or outside service.

    I don't speak for British Officers, they spoke to me. They pointed out that unlike some of the jingoistic nonsense posted by some of the BA posters here that the BA has plenty of problems and horror of all horrors that other Armies might do some things better than them!

    Jessup,
    You are quite right.

    There is an organisation called VIPA -Veterans in Prison Association . They have a conference coming up later this month chaired by General Ramsbotham - former Inspector of Prisons.

    Their website gives a figure of 12,500 ex-servicemen on Probation/Parole and up to 8,000 in Prison.

    In addition to that the Homeless Charities here also state that a significant number of homeless on teh streets are ex-servicemen, although there could obviously be an overlap with the above.



    http://www.veteransinprisonassociation.co.uk/

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessup View Post
    The evidence is on your own website. http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...nalrecord.aspx The BA has had to resort to bottom feeding and other initiatives to try and fill it's recruitment quota a long time before Iraq and Afghanistan. The BA is still massively unrepresentative of the ethnic make up of the UK population. Left with such a limited pool to pick from it's inevitable that you are often forced to accept applicants that are far from suitable.

    The evidence is futher substantiated by the fact that 8% of the prison population in the UK are ex services?

    So what about the recruit fitness and training if the individual is of poor character. That very training and fitness is going to produce a far more difficult problem to deal with later either inside or outside service.

    I don't speak for British Officers, they spoke to me. They pointed out that unlike some of the jingoistic nonsense posted by some of the BA posters here that the BA has plenty of problems and horror of all horrors that other Armies might do some things better than them!

    Dont lecture on the ethnic make up of the BA, how many Poles and Nigerians are in the Irish army then ? The BA has numerous commonwealth soldiers. Considering one in 4 males in the UK has a criminal conviction, 8% when taken as part of a bigger stat is not that bad. So you expect me to believe BA officers slagged off there own men to you ?

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessup View Post
    And therin lies the problem. Is there such a thing as purely 'combat soldiering' nowadays'? Two sides, both in uniform, clearly delineated boundaries etc. that's all a thing of the past. With asymmetric warfare you need a soldier that can do all three. It's not good enough to have some thug who has been trained to use an SA 80 instead of a Stanley Knife.

    Are you saying you need to be convicted of assault or affray in order to be a good soldier, hardly! So, why bother even taking the risk that some will go on to make first class soldiers while some will cause enormous problem inside and outside of service. The lower standard is there not for military or social reasons it's there because you couldn't fill your quota otherwise.


    No its you thats saying a lad with a conviction for something like assault or affrey cannot make a good infantry soldier. When infact events like the Falklands showed such personalities often make the best combat soldiers.

    Once again you claim the BA has a lower standard, having qualifications does not make someone a good infantryman and to judge an infantrymans combat effectivness on intellectualism shows just how very different the BA and Irish army are in training ethos and their defined roles.

    Physically some in the Irish army dont look up to soldiering.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/OpsOffic...94013242612626


    http://picasaweb.google.com/OpsOffic...93083056904210
    Vanguard
    Banned User
    Last edited by Vanguard; 7 April 2010, 15:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessup
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    So a lad with a conviction for an assault or affray should not be allowed to join the infantry ?

    Yet, some go on to make first class soldiers.

    But Obviously I recognise the ethos and personality needed for combat soldiering and pacekeeping and internal security duties are very different.

    Different armies and a different ethos.
    And therin lies the problem. Is there such a thing as purely 'combat soldiering' nowadays'? Two sides, both in uniform, clearly delineated boundaries etc. that's all a thing of the past. With asymmetric warfare you need a soldier that can do all three. It's not good enough to have some thug who has been trained to use an SA 80 instead of a Stanley Knife.

    Are you saying you need to be convicted of assault or affray in order to be a good soldier, hardly! So, why bother even taking the risk that some will go on to make first class soldiers while some will cause enormous problem inside and outside of service. The lower standard is there not for military or social reasons it's there because you couldn't fill your quota otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessup
    replied
    Originally posted by Vanguard View Post
    Standard much lower ? What evidence do you have for that claim ?

    Certainly not in terms of basic recruit fitness and training.

    You speak for British officiers as well ?
    The evidence is on your own website. http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/toughques...nalrecord.aspx The BA has had to resort to bottom feeding and other initiatives to try and fill it's recruitment quota a long time before Iraq and Afghanistan. The BA is still massively unrepresentative of the ethnic make up of the UK population. Left with such a limited pool to pick from it's inevitable that you are often forced to accept applicants that are far from suitable.

    The evidence is futher substantiated by the fact that 8% of the prison population in the UK are ex services?

    So what about the recruit fitness and training if the individual is of poor character. That very training and fitness is going to produce a far more difficult problem to deal with later either inside or outside service.

    I don't speak for British Officers, they spoke to me. They pointed out that unlike some of the jingoistic nonsense posted by some of the BA posters here that the BA has plenty of problems and horror of all horrors that other Armies might do some things better than them!

    Leave a comment:

  • concussion
    Gunner

  • concussion
    replied
    If you don't have stats for the rates of prior convictions then you statement that 8% of the prison population are EX-servicemen doesn't, in fact, say it all about the standards of the troops. It may say a lot about how they are treated, both during service and afterwards but you can't use that figure to gauge the standard of those applying.

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessup View Post
    No it doesn't but which is worse? Providing an environment for those who are already criminals to become more dangerous criminals or providing an environment for previously non convicted people to become criminals?


    So a lad with a conviction for an assault or affray should not be allowed to join the infantry ?

    Yet, some go on to make first class soldiers.

    But Obviously I recognise the ethos and personality needed for combat soldiering and pacekeeping and internal security duties are very different.

    Different armies and a different ethos.

    Leave a comment:

  • Vanguard
    Banned User

  • Vanguard
    replied

    Hello Alaska,

    Of course you are right- I had unfortunately resorted to irony as RGJ pretends that the BA is somehow superior to the Irish Army while the facts show that there has been criminal mis-management during ops. in Iraq. As I mentioned, I was quite impressed by the attention to detail shown by Harare Police while planning for a simple church protest. You can see that the Irish influence (esp. the use of PISI) which we used to call SB- still lingers- I am proud of these men.

    Tim[/QUOTE]


    Its not about claiming the BA is superior, its role is totally different from the defence forces, the complexity of its operations in fast changing theatres means sometimes things will go wrong. You cant seriously compare Irish army 1 battalion UN ops with conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, your agenda is simply to denigrade the rep of the BA, partly I suspect due to the fact the Irish army never sees combat, hence the need to big it up by slagging the Brits.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X