Register

Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between Iraq and a hard place
    Posts
    11,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Witty_Banter View Post
    Too late lads, they've been doing that for years - may I present....the MPGS...the Armed Forces version of G4S (who are equally, if not even more useless)


    p01lz1hw.jpg

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Witty_Banter View Post
    It's good to see that someone so near the top has identified that they've royally fecked up, but I don't think that's their primary concern. There's certainly an argument for allowing entry to people who aren't physically fit or healthy enough and then training them up to the standard (like we used to before phys became such a high priority).

    But I think they also need to recognise that there just isn't enough drive in most 18-35 year olds to push them toward military service. They've not been exposed to major global conflict like previous generations, where WW2 and the Cold War were relatively fresh in our history. In context, their exposure has been to our conflicts in distant dusty places that seemed to fill no defensive purpose. The 'war on terror' is completely different, in that it's been brought home on more than one occasion, but there's a definitive disconnect between the military and home grown terrorism - we've not deployed to sort that out, it's the job of the police or MI5.

    Combine this with our current crop of oh-so-easily-offendable-snowflakes, and there's not many left who could be deemed as 'soldier material'. I think that (regardless of physical gender), soldiering has always required a certain element of masculinity - and we've managed to breed that out of our newest generations, in favour of a more metrosexual / hormone-neutral approach. I'm not trying to be sexist, I'm talking more of a psychological masculine / femenine rather than physical gender.

    the MOD has spent the last decade chopping off any perks associated to military service, and cutting manpower because it 'wasn't needed'. All of this has been clearly visible to the public, so what's the incentive to join (or more specifically, to join and stay)?
    I agree. From the quote mentioned it would mean that half of 17-35 year olds are fit enough to pass the tests. But why join nowadays when it's better money being an electrician and equal chance of travel in some cases.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Should 16/17 year olds get the vote?
    By FOMz in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 21:54
  2. Emmerdale confuses 7 year-olds
    By Ex-Bay in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28-07-2010, 11:28
  3. Half Man, Half Tree.
    By Talk Wrench in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-11-2007, 17:03
  4. 9% of Army below the standard of an 8 year old
    By TrenchardsLoveSock in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-03-2007, 01:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top