So pissed off at tories putting military youth groups into deprived area schools

[trashcanjunkie]

We live in Newcastle. Yes it's a deprived area. I feel aghast at the fact the only half decent comprehensive school in our area has a cadet group based at school, with fucking army wankers there recruiting kids. The whole army campaign to get them young and 'make them better people' boils my fucking piss. They're cannon fodder who will likely get shipped out to oil wars, and left up shit creek without a paddle, wanting for basic kit etc. Then they either get blown to pieces, die, or come home horrifically injured or psychologically shattered. Now the government are rolling out another military type program and are putting money into sending them into schools in deprived areas.

Fwiw I've nothing against youngsters learning discipline or survival skills etc. I just have an issue with recruiting cannon fodder from 'us plebs'....

It's true that "cadets" doesn't mean "armed forces". But if you think that some of the brutal, sexist, dehumanising, imperialist, unquestioning rule-adherence doesn't filter down, you're sadly mistaken. This is not to denounce any individual in the armed forces - there are some lovely people, I know. But the system stinks. And some very disempowered people with few options become recruited into it.

I was a cadet in the 90s (army boots were fashionable back then...), and I went on the camps, etc.. What I learnt of the attitudes these structures are built on haunts me still.

To all those posters in the armed forces, or with family members who are, thank you so much for your efforts. I'd hate to do it myself, so I'm all the more glad that you do it.

As BadLad said, thank you. I know the sacrifices that are made so that brave people can keep this country safe for tosspots to sit at home typing bilge for all of us, thanks to you all.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel I think you find it has changed since then. Cadets is not brutal, sexist, or dehumanising. The rest is a matter of opinion.

And pity unless you're cleared to a certain security level, then I'd suggest you don't have the level of knowledge for a worthwhile discussion.

By level of knowledge, I mean about the political and social history of Syria and the wider region alongside what was occurring in the country prior to the 2011 uprising. Something that has far greater relevance then the ability to throw around some military jargon.

Unless, you think that knowing about a country and its people is completely irrelevant to foreign policy and military intervention?

Back to the OP, British soldiers have died due to poor equipment. There have been many occasions of soldiers pointing out the inadequacy of their equipment. That doesn't point to a government who treats their armed forces well.

another it sounds like your experience in cadets was awful, I'm sorry. I have been in the forces for a number of years now, and as a female feel there is no limit to what I can achieve. I also question all the time, it's what were taught in training now.
Although I think the 90s military was very different to the one You see today.
We routinely made top 100 lists for best employer to wrk for if you're gay/a woman.

Ok another my most recent post above must have crossed in the ether with your post explaining your experience of cadets. I'm really sorry that happened to you and that my post must come across as insensitive in that light. I will report it and request for MN to delete it.

One of Michael Moore's documentaries looked at US forces recruitment in certain areas: he went "recruiting" politicians' DC on Capitol Hill! Made the point well.

Thanks MrsMorton I maybe didn't make that clear enough.. That was my point exactly - I just felt it was yet another possibly ill-informed example of Tory bashing.

DH is from a deprived (actually deprived not just me saying that) place in the NE.

He went to cadets whilst at school and saw the military as a way out of the crap place he lived - he trained as an Officer straight from uni.

He's still in now, done a few tours, seen some amazing places and got some fantastic skills and qualifications.

My tuppenceworth:

1 - Cadets as a recruiting tool is absolutely not worth the investment. (neither are the OTCs at universities). As a tool for civic engagement, on the other hand, they're worth every penny.

2 - Officers absolutely can come from a deprives background. My husband's one - from just the sort of area that "cannon fodder" (horrible, prejudiced phrase) are recruited. His recruitment officer took one look at him when he walked into the office at 16, wanting to join as a ranker and told him to get back to school and join as an officer. My husband did that and more - he went to Uni, got undergrad and postgrad degrees and then to RMAS. In twelve years, he went from a 2nd Lieutenant to a Lieutenant Colonel and fingers crossed he'll go higher yet (he has still got 18 years left before retirement).

Just in case anyone thinks he's the exception, there are plenty on here who'll point to senior officers with similar backgrounds. The Forces are a meritocracy.

3 - Babykillers? Really?

I can see that the armed forces, like other employers, have made big changes. pinki, I'm delighted to hear your experiences of it.

There are a lot of occupations (probably most) in which social priviledge is a massive advantage, and top positions are always disproportionately occupied by private school alumni. This is certainly true of the armed forces. For instance, I believe half of the army's officer corps is privately educated (5% of the general population is). There is a continued gradient of priviledge down the ranks, I am reliably informed. What makes this particularly disturbing for the armed forces is that the probability of being killed.maimed is quite high in certain jobs. These jobs are more often the more junior ones, yes?

TheWombat, thanks for your polite request. Nothing I have read substantially changes my view that some of the values pervading the military are deeply disturbing. But I appreciate that these things are a matter of opinion.

I'm with you OP. I find this normalization of the military that has been going on the last few years very alarming. As cadets, children will be handling guns (albeit in a controlled environment) do parents really want them to be that familiar and desensitized with weaponry? £45 million I heard is being used to set this all up, yet the Gov has cut back on EMA and DSA. As for the 'confidence' argument, there are better ways to nurture this within the school environment than playing at soldiers.

do parents really want them to be that familiar and desensitized with weaponry?

You say that like we have a blasé attitude towards it. Before a cadet is allowed to use a rifle they must learn how to use it safely, and prove they can do so. This can take many hours of training. Indeed, before they are allowed to touch one they have to learn the safe handling rules, the first of which is "Never point a weapon at anyone under any circumstances".

There are over a hundred thousand parents who are currently happy with the arrangement.

Not sure what the problem is with a military career

OH has been in the Navy for 25 years and has had a great career and has many skills and values from that.

They are not homophobic as was said upthread - hes served alongside many openly homosexual men and women .....

Shouldn't OP ask MNHQ to amend the inaccurate thread title - should say Labour not Tory.

"For instance, I believe half of the army's officer corps is privately educated (5% of the general population is)."

The confounding factor there is the number who were pad brats, and whose schooling was paid for by MoD (with additional confounders about length of engagement and likelihood of serving during the qualifying years of the DC's life).

And if you're looking at junior officers, they'll be out with the troops and sharing the same risks. Officers are however vastly more likely to score desk jobs (no matter how fiercely they try to wriggle out of them) and that is likely to be safer, as are many of the embassy-based ones.

The Govt have cut back on EMA and DSA because of their ideology zigzag, it's nothing to do with this.

pity I wholeheartedly agree, to gain a true understanding of the threat environment you need a full picture. History, politics AND information that the general public will never see.

Has anyone else got an RAF recruitment poster at the bottom of their page? They're targeting mums, from the deprived pages of mums net

To be fair, most teenagers (particularly boys) will have had enough experience of playing Call of Duty and the rest, that they don't need desensitizing to weaponry.

If anything, cadets balances this rather than augmenting it.

pinki, no - they clearly don't want me
Although they do appear to want me to buy a budget holiday...

Pinki "the threat environment"

No, is not a "threat environment", Syria is first and foremost a country, not some military zone devoid of civilised life. Your insistence at describing it in military jargon terms is nauseating and unimpressive.

I'm not sure which "general public" you are referring to either, I'm pretty sure the general public of Syria are more informed about the realities of their country then some military top brass several thousand miles away.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear why such an excellent employer doesn't equip its troops properly and allows situations like the deaths at Deepcut barracks occur.

pity I agree with you more than you know, and there is much I want to say but can't.
I agree deepcut was appalling, much has changed in policy and process since then. The safeguarding around training units specially has improved (it had to), to the point many receive outstanding from ofsted now.

The deaths at Deepcut were over 20 yrs ago - even though it does appear a cover up took place I would like to think the attitudes and working environment and policies have changed since then.

The MOD are like any large employer there are good bits and bad bits.