Not happy my 13 year 's class old had recruitment presentation from armed forces today

"I mentioned pencilhead and there are apparently many worse terms."

There are - I've never heard my husband use anything other than civvy (sometimes accomapnied by a few choice adjectives, depending on the the situation). Mind you, I don't know what terms he uses when he's bantering with other soldiers and officers.

The Forces have a peculiar type of balck humour that doesn't always translate well when relayed to civvies - there is a very distinct military culture that is part historical, part personal and bred into those that join during training. I've seen my parents frown in misunderstanding when my husband tells a story he thinks is funny but which (clearly) doesn't strike a similar chord in his listeners.

There is also a culture, especially in the Army, of nicknames and slang being used for everyday things. Some of that language may not be complimentary but it always (IMO) used with a affection or a certain type of bemused respect.

I don't know that I'm explaining myself well here.

I think the term "cannon fodder" is not, in itself, offensive. As pointydoug says, it applies perhaps more to the governement's attitude towards the average squaddy rather than the public's attitude. However, I think where it makes me uncomfortable is not that the government doesn't particuloarly care about the Forces - frankly, I don't think they do, for all sorts of reasons.

It makes me uncomfortable in the context of this debate - that people here think that the Forces (not the government) regard their recruits as "cannon fodder"; that they don't give full disclosure during the recruitment process; that they somehow disguise the nature of the job in their hurry to boost numbers.

That article I posted makes it pretty clear that those going through training are fully aware of the job they will be called upon to do and that they are happy with that. We've said several time that the Forces invest in their personnel and the idea that ordinary people think the Forces are an uncaring employer goes directly against our personal experience.

So, in summary, I think that the problem is twofold and perfectly understandable.

1 - People are deeply uncomfortable with the job that the Forces do - even when they recognise the very real neccessity of that job - and they can't understand why any sane person would join up. Therefore, they're honestly and sincerely concerned at the thought of their children joining up - and that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

2 - As adults and parents who are very aware fo the Forces in the news (Afghanistan, Iraq, deaths and woundings) they assume that anyone who joined up must have been, somehow, duped into by a glamourous recruitment process and, therefore, are worried by the presence of the Forces in schools.

So, it can be hard for those with little connection to the military to understand that there are people who actively seek out a career in the Forces and who enjoy that career and all it offers - including the chance to prove themselves on the field of battle. Certainly my husband is one of those people.

Honestly, I can see the views of parents on this thread and I can understand why they would worry about their child - I worry about my husband every day he's out there and I'll continue to worry about him until he comes home. I can also see how a lack of experience of the military would feed the legitmate concerns of parents and magnify their worries.

My sole purpsoe in this thread has not been to antagonise or to upset anyone but simply to try and explain the nature of military life as I understand it - as a wife and mother - and to try and make it clear that there is more to the Forces than the popular stereotype.

Quite; I don't.

My point was you seem to care very much how one side might feel but not the other, in that particular case.

I'm not talking about civvy. No one could take offence at that. I mentioned pencilhead and there are apparently many worse terms

It ain't spiel pointy - it's how many of us feel.

I get called a civvy by my db and my dh as well, because I am...I'm not in the Forces, so it's true; cannon fodder to me is not true.

I haven't used the term, scary, so there's no need to give me the spiel.

But you laugh away at pencilhead and get wound up by cannon fodder.

Yes I do think that Pointy, and some of the comments on this thread bear that out, and on previous threads on MN as well. That is why presentations in schools are important, to show that the Armed Forces are members of the community who do a job that is a bit different.

My db is off to hot sandy places this year - is he cannon fodder with an MSc, a commission and 21 years experience in the RN behind him?

It sounds cold, and it is not meant to be, because it could easily be my db who gets killed, but the casualties in Afghanistan aren't as numerous as they were in the Falklands, and I can remember sitting crying every time a ship was sunk there, and when the Atlantic Conveyor was hit and the Sir Galahad.

The govt can't easily replace those killed and it would take years to do so because of the expertise and training many of them had. You don't learn to be a bomb disposal expert in the blink of an eye; or command a platoon or company or battalion just like that; or be an expert in logisitics.

Do you think people who talk about cannon fodder haven't met a lot of forces staff and don't realise they have families and children? You have a differnet interpretation to me.

If I hear 'cannon fodder', I think more of governments wanting to increase recruitment numbers to replace those killed. I don't think of uneducated knuckle-draggers or anything of that sort.

'It's fine for armed forces to have many derogatory names 'cause they is so strong and disciplined and proifessional and humorous.

Isn't it just terrible that commie barmy don't-know-they're-born should-know-better teachers have an opinion on forces in school'

Glad you agree with me Pointy!! My point exactly about the Armed Forces being strong, disciplined, professional and humorous.

People who think cannon fodder is accurate should perhaps take the trouble to meet some of the Armed Forces and talk to them about why they do what they do, instead of spouting hot air. They might find they are talking to human beings with wives and families, not devils with tails and horns.

Ah no, jscot - the Armed Forces are evil, bad people who spend their lives looking for someone to kill and maim.....that's the response I got from left wing teachers, (who talk about being open minded but aren't), when wanting my dh to come into school to talk to my after school GCSE RE class about war and peace.

I was told a pacifist would be more appropriate ....mmmm, so a balanced discussion is out of the question then?

"However, the RN are more polite and refer to them as civvies. "

Hee! By and large, that's how the Army refers to them as well but I have heard a few choice monikers that make me smile from time to time.

On a serious note, teachers have every right to have an opinion on who visits their school. It's the singling out of the Forces as big, bad, cultish organisations that want to dupe poor ignorant young people into throwing themselves in harm's way that annoys me. Why are we ghetto-ised?

The soldiers, sailors and airmen I know - of all ranks - are well-informed and, by and large, joined the Forces because it offered them a worthwhile career that interested and stimulated them.

Just like everyone else, then.

It's fine for armed forces to have many derogatory names 'cause they is so strong and disciplined and proifessional and humorous.

Isn't it just terrible that commie barmy don't-know-they're-born should-know-better teachers have an opinion on forces in school

som epeople think cannon fodder is fairly descriptive and accurate too. There we go.

Here's nyle with much-needed input

Descriptive and accurate methinks!! However, the RN are more polite and refer to them as civvies.

lol at name doug

is pencilneck not derogatory?

Cannon-fodder sounds pretty derogatory to me and yes, I would class NUT members as left wing liberals, although I don't know about softies...bordering on the communist some of them, I think, and as you can tell by my moniker, I know and have worked with lots of teachers.

imo, the NUT statement implies that oil interests can be a major reason for a war. I do not think they are implying that soldiers are mindless sheep at all.

In fact, I think the writer of that article has a view of teachers as left wing liberal softies and he is using a couple of very poor examples to try to substantiate his point of view.

I didn't post the article to be defensive, honestly. It was this section of tyhe article that made me think of this thread:

^"At last year's National Union of Teachers' annual conference, for instance, troops were described as "cannon-fodder for the profits of oil companies", the implication being that soldiers are led like sheep to the slaughter, rather than soldiering being the profession they have chosen for themselves.

Plaid Cymru has called for a ban on Army recruitment in schools. They claim the Army is unfairly targeting schools in the poorest areas of Wales. Again, this furthers the view that new recruits chose the Army only because they have no choice but to sign up."^

Isn't that the view of those on this thread who are annoyed/worried by the Forces visiting schools/colleges? I thought the article provided a bit of context, that's all.

I think the article - and the last couple of comments - are getting too defensive.

I am all for the armed forces and I respect them as much as anyone else doing a job to the best of their abilities. That is not what this thread is about.

And if it's just light-hearted banter to come away with pencilnecks, what's so wrong with cannon fodder?

Excellent article, but some people want to remain blinkered and anti the forces, without bothering to investigate what they are all about.

Hadn't heard 'pencilnecks' before. Good one.

Was talking to a Bulgarian Officer yesterday; sounds like their Armed Forces are respected far more than ours.

This article is very timely to the discussion. It talks to young recruits about why they joined up, their perceptions of training/recruitment and what they think of being described as "...cannon fodder...".

Fury of the Firing Line

I don't expect the MoD could get public liability insurance, as the public aren't generally allowed into bases or dockyards. They are also not any other company, and nor do they run like one.

I would contact the organisers to raise your concerns and ask what would happen in the scenario outlined.

When one of my tutor group went on a weekend like this and broke her ankle, she was given medical treatment and taken back to her home when she was fit to travel; exactly as would have happened at school.

They are running it, I expect, from their recrutment budget. My DD is not part of the armed forces she is a member of the public, and therefore should be covered by public liability insurance.

My mum helps run a credit union and has to pay public liability insurance incase anybody trips or falls while on the premises. She gives up her time every week to help run this and does not get paid, neither do any of the other people who run it. Any profit goes to the credit union members. Im sure if they can manage to pay, so can the MOD.

The army simply couldn't afford the insurance premium. I expect they are running it free. Any other company would cover it with the cost of the activity, and most people wouldn't be able to afford it. They are quite clear- so it is your choice, send them, don't send them or get personal accident insurance. I would be very annoyed if I got there and only found at that point. They have been very upfront.