Previous  1  2  3

They can't be failed? That makes no sense.

I'm not arguing, just

My brain hurts thinking about that! Who the f*** came up with that?

I'm sure those who "fail", yet don't get "failed" know who they are.

P.S....unit preferably dwaters..with that I could always find out more!

   

I need a name I have friends out that way of the world who maybe able to help ya out.

   

canadian1971

There are only 4 Reserve ARMY units in Nfld

They are
1st Battalion, The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
2nd Battalion, The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
36 Service Battalion
56 Field Engineer Squadron

So he must of been on of those.

Cheers

   

Mike Edmonds is the name"Fox" as we knew him....from Mt. Moriah/Corner Brook. I saw him on NTV(Newfie TV), They let those serving say a little hello to friends and family back home ever now and then. I saw him saying hello....couldnt belive how freaking big he was...the "Fox" I knew was tiny.

   

Firstly, recruits can be failed if they don't meet the standard. Comdt/CO passes are pretty thin on the ground. You must record each and every failing in detail. You must be able to demonstrate within reasonable bounds that you have tried to improve them and correct their shortcomings. These steps are laid out in the CTP/CTS. The chain must be kept informed religiously. Here at WATC, I have always been able to punt those who don't cut it. It made alot of work for me, but hey, what else have I got to do, right? Idle people will always make it through, that's life, but constant supervision, well written PERs and a long memory will almost always ensure they don't re-engage. Either that or they'll get posted, or in the case of the Mo, maybe quit.

As for the Airforce deportment thing, I didn't realize there was seperate dress regulations for the blue. (I'm joking) Earrings while in uniform are in direct violation of the dress regulations and refusing to remove them when given a direct order to do so is grounds for being charged. Isn't it considered FOD? At what rank can a charge be laid in the Airforce? Would your chain support that charge? What about the Sargeant-Major? (I don't know the Airforce term).

You guys are in a much different environment that's for sure.

   

Sapper I do agree with your pionts and I do keep a very long paper trail on these people when I teach courses. I'm not saying that your wrong but there are too many officers who are affraid of getting there peepee slapped for failing these people and give them 4 & 5 chances to pass. It's REDICULUS. Then again maybe I'm just getting the crappy officers cause I know a few that are really good and I just use them as the standard.

Rooooooooole up the rimmm to win eh.
I don't see any winning, all I've gotten is the big ole. "Please Play Again" finger

oh well time for another coffee.....maybe the next time.

   

Spr you have no idea how ridiculous it is. Next time you're in the neighbourhood, stop by your friendly air force base. Take a walk through the mess hall and tell me how you feel about climbing a water tower and thinning out the herd. I take a great amount of pleasure saluting officers when you enter their offices here. Seeing the look of sheer terror on their faces, then watching them begin to salute, realize they are not wearing head dress, then they forget what they are supposed to do. 9 times out of 10 they just tell you to relax and they carry on as though they are in charge. As far as the Sgt Maj goes (we call them Wing Chief), most of them are just as bad as the troops. I had to come here years ago as a Cpl and had a CWO tell me to call him by his first name!!! Astounding.

   

WOW talk about MAX. RELAX, that would make me go crazy.

   

It sounds like I couldn't get to the messhall for a couple of years since I subscribed to the notion of "never pass a fault". Don't slack off. Paying proper respect and following the QR&O's/CFAO's as much as possible is not a fault nor a weakness. Everyone who subscibes to those lackadaisical notions are wrong. Plain and simple. They are setting a bad example to the troops and when confronting a disiplinary problem they'll have no credibility. I'm not saying that hard-ass Army is the only way, I don't believe in it completely, but the way you describe is certainly not the way to do it.

No where does it say you have to put up with it. I've witnessed superiors in my younger days trying the first name thing out only to be pulled up short by the Cpl. You are entitled to be addressed by superiors by your rank and last name, by your rank, or by your last name. Never first names (unless it's the sports field/home environment). Nothing wrong with insisting on it. Like I said before, you don't have to be a prick about it. Proper discipline and deportment do not interfere with the job.

BTW, who said the officers were in charge?

   

Spr / Waters...your comments are 100% right on. The problem is it's like kicking a retarded puppy. You try to sort a guy out, and he looks at you like it's the first time he's ever been told he has to do all his buttons up. Or he needs to wear head dress from his car to the Canex. Fucking astounding.

BTW...I never said officer's were in charge. I said they ignored the fact that they didn't know what to do, then they started to ACT like they were in charge. Subtle difference, but of course it's all about making them feel good about themselves, so they have stories to tell each other at CO's coffee

   

Being an Ulsterman (Northern Irish) we have a long history of service in the British army and a noble tradition of service which has continued. I don't ever remember learning about much military history at school, apart from a breif overview of the Second World War. But it was mostly home taught pride in military service which gave many Ulsterman a pride in the British army and led many to join it.

Education in school can't provide much patriotism, pride or willingness to join the military, it must be taught at home and through cultural traditions. Thats how it is in Northern Ireland anyway. Many people in Ulster are taught about the Battle of the Somme and have pride in their memory of past heroic deeds in military history.

Of course education can help, but unless the pride is there at home to back it up, or the history then theres no way it will take hold. Mindset can be influenced by culture, tradition and heritage, but sometimes even these aren't enough, and it may just come down to not being cut out for the military (As it was with me). Yet my brothers joined the British army, one a Royal Marine the other in the Royal Irish Regiment.

I read a book written by a Canadian soldier called: "Tarnished Brass: Crime and Corruption in the Canadian Military" written by Scott Taylor & Brian Nolan, which put the blame of the problems within the Canadian military on "Careerist and bureaucratic senior officers". One part of the book interested me a lot, which was about General John de Chastelain, who was head of the "International Commission on Decommissioning" in Northern Ireland they write "de Chastelain made a name for himself as a callous micro-manager whose fingers were in everyone's pie." Since his retirement to take on his Belfast duties "Prince John" still receives: "...a federal per diem, and all travel and other expenses are publicly reimbursed. This remuneration is in addition to his three government pension cheques."

Hence by his personal example, de Chastelain "altered the public's perception of the Canadian military high command from one of dutiful service to one of career opportunities where greed, pettiness, self promotion and self-preservation flourished." "It is doubtful that this problem is limited to Canada."

What are your opinions on this?

   

"Careerism" is not new, nor is it restricted to the Canadian military. It is a regretable consequence of a peacetime armed forces that, once the blooded veterans of a prior war leave the service, those whose ambition lies in self-advancement become the best known and most notorious.

Prior to WWII the Canadian military and navy had to engage in a serious shake-up to rid themselves of the peacetime martinets and the truly incompetent fools who had advanced, not on their skill, sense of duty and stong leadership, but through connections, notoriety and attendance at the proper events.

Canada, however, had it very easy compared to what the US military endured. The US Army was corrupt to the core, under-equipped, poorly trained and filled with careerists in the officer corps. The US Navy wasn't much different, although there had been a major house-cleaning in 1936 which eliminated many of the problems.

The British military has had a long tradition of careerists, although it can be argued that those officers came from wealth and were simply attempting to gain a better social standing in their class. Amazingly, if there is one military where the careerism has eased it is the British.

In Canada, in the past few decades, careerist officers have become more the norm than the exception. It is abhorrent to me that, in some quarters, the same affliction has started to find its way into the ranks/lower deck.

I used to grind up my department heads in a ship after being briefed on a condition/plan/problem/idea with the following question: "If I ask your departmental CPO about this what is he going to say?"
At least 50 percent of the time, the young officer would scurry away because he/she hadn't discussed it with the department Chief or the section Petty Officers.
It was my feeble attempt to train some of these kids that loyalty comes from the bottom, along with all the good ideas, the work and the success.

There is a lot more could be said, but I'll leave it for another post.

   

Previous  1  2  3