Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#1
More cuts to come by the Autumn 2,000 plus and yet every day you see and hear on tv and radio, be the best, join the Army.
With all of these cut backs why get rid of experienced troops and recruit raw ones.
Or are they just continuing to waste money on advertising.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#2
No Ian you should know this That it takes time to train up new troops and there must always be young ones going up. But we also need the experienced ones to,So as I said there should be no cut backs.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#3
Yes this is the oddest thing and it must be particularly galling for the guys currently on the frontline who will lose their jobs and their homes when they return to the UK. It really is bizarre. Kicking out people who have put their lives on the line, have massive amounts of experience, and then to take on new guys who know nothing... with staggering amounts of TV advertising.
The cost of the advertising isnt cheap of course, but relatively minor to the real cost, the cost of recruiting and the cost of training and the cost of inexperience. Its true that fresh youthful blood is always needed but the whole thing is very poor PR at the moment.
Announcing widespread cuts yesterday in personnel, and previously in equipment, yet at the same time the recruitment adv goes on. Perhaps the new young guys keen to join might ponder a moment at the way they in turn will get treated several years down the line.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#4
Yes Vic I know it takes time, I don't consider anything less than 12 months enough training to put someone on the front line.
Unfortunately with the present world climate how many 18yr olds do you see lining up at the recruitment office. very very few I think.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
the thing is we get involved militarily overseas more and more.
the world will get a more dangerous place over the next few years with all the problems in the arab world.
a recently retired chief of staff was quoted last week as saying that we are at full stretch now without getting involved in libya.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#6
Ian at this very time recruitment is on a high but it is is all about geting the right person for the right job.Just now on the news after all the cut backs the UK will still hold on to the 3rd place of the best forces in the whole world.that is the news telling you that not me.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#7
The best army is an Island Army, where the Shores can be defended. We have an Island Army, and that is where our Army belongs, with Ships with the Trident on the Sail patrolling the Coast.
Our soldiers should not be sent into any of these war zones that pop up in the East. As I have already stated, we should be like Ireland, a neutral Country!
#8
Im sure lab will be blamed for theese cuts to eventually the con libs will take responsibility for something they do .
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#9
No Mark the reds were backing the forces with new ships.planes, and tanks which is in need when a war is going on.Must say that was avery big +for them
#10
Vic as Dc is getting us involved with wars all over thev world you must agree cutting army jobs is crazy .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Vic - Labour starved the Armed Forces of cash and over committed them. They received the worse financial settlements consistently of any department over the last 13 years. A lot of the orders for new equipment were never backed up by the funds needed to buy them.
Even if the Defence budget was not being cut they would still have to be cutting a lot of equipment purchases and/or reducing their size.
I have said many times the one and only area of public spending that should not be cut is Defence. What is more it is the department that should be prioritised for higher spending as soon as the cash is available. Our forces are over-stretched, under manned, under funded and desperately needed.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#12
What we need is smaller standing armed forces and much, much stronger reserves. The TA, RAFR and Wavy Navy need strengthening, not cutting.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#13
Mark, it is the opposite of post 10: it is crazy to get us involved in wars all over the world, and not crazy to cut back on arms-spending!
Furthermore, the Government have revoked many licences to sell arms from Britain to other countries. Sometimes they baffle me in the Government, but they also seem to keep their wits and make the right decisions.
One hopes the latter will prevail!
What might seem crazy to some, could be a principle for others. I prefer depicting Churches, and as a logical consequence, I don't support Britain being involved in wars, and I welcome reductions in arms spending and in the exporting of arms.
It dsoesn't mean that I am crazy!
#14
i dont agree with any british service man or woman being involved with any war which has NOTHING to do with England, we are only sticking our noses in for the lame reason the goverment has seen there a chance of profits with oil, libia we sold them arms and then we go in guns a blazing to tell the nasty man off? same as iraq and will there ever be peace over there? im guessing not . yet the goverment over load our service people with putting very little in its a disgrace.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#15
mel,thats what they are paid for in the first place along with this dumb island of ours.
#16
I agree Alexander but Dc seems to want us to be involved in wars allover the world , so you must agree cutting the armed service in theese conditions makes no sense .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
cannot blame dave on this one, most recent prime ministers have taken the war route.
if you think about it, takes peoples minds of the incompetence of our leaders in running the country.
an iraqi bloke told me about 15 years ago that if there was a fight on the sea bed between two species of fish the british would have stoked it up.
#18
Would it be because taking us to war seems to make Pms popular for a while Howard , because his policies certainly wont .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
could be mark, i suspect that the egos of our betters take over and gives them a chance to be a statesman.
cutting benefits to the less well off does not have the same effect.
#20
Brian they join the BRITISH army to fight for OUR queen and country not everyone elses problems.
