Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 September 2008
10:506310#1
The BBC were running a 'so called' expose over Army training last night with a reporter posing as a recruit.
I did not see the programme, but I did this morning log into the Army Rumour Service (AARSE) to see what serving soldiers were saying about it.
I have to say the contempt for this reporter and disgust at the BBC is what really hits home. Even one poster who was being open minded about the programme before it was aired said that he could see nothing unreasonable. The general view was that the training was for a front-line infantry role, a tough aggressive job and must be hard. Its certainly no place for some weedy twerp who objects to being shouted at or called names and being forced to do press-ups, parade in bad weather etc...
Now lets be clear, there is no room for bullying in any walk of life, but in training for an infantry role what would be unacceptable in a normal occupation can be important. Where you draw the line is difficult and this is where the views of those who have been through it and who serve in the front line are important, so the views expressed on AARSE are of great interest.
Did anyone see it?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 September 2008
14:146319#2
I found the following excellent draft letter on ARRSE. As far as I am concerned the BBC should have the licence fee taken away from them. I agree with every word of the following but would not bother to write such a letter myself to our MP as he has as little interest in the Forces as his leader.
--------
Sent to my local MP and OFCOM.
Please feel free to plagiarise as necessary
Sir,
THE BBC PROGRAMME UNDERCOVER SOLDIER
1. During the making of this programme the BBC has used Taxpayers money to feed, house and train a recruit who in reality was a reporter. He had no intention of ever serving his country. It has now become clear that this programme was as lacking in substance as it was in incriminating evidence, in that after more than 5 months of training the reporter "Sharpe" provided absolutely no evidence of bullying. He did however provide much hearsay against an investigation which was already ongoing.
2. I would point out that "Sharpe" lied on his attestation, and draw your attention to the Oath of Allegiance:
I .....(name) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors [and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the Generals and Officers set over me. So Help me God."
3. "Sharpe" obviously had no intention of keeping his oath and deliberately lied in order that he could leave the army. This does not surprise me in this day and age. Honour, duty and loyalty are not considered worthy traits by such odious people as "Sharpe". He probably found the idea of swearing an Oath distasteful. Fortunately for him his forebears did not, otherwise his oath may have begun with the words;
" Ich Shwuere bei Unsere Fuehrer Adolf Hitler....."
4. However the fact that the BBC commissioned this "reality programme", in effect using my money to undermine the Armed Forces in which I served as an Officer for 24 years, makes my blood boil. The Corporation at least deserves a name change for they most certainly do not represent the UK in any way, shape or form. I have no problem with the "Chattering Classes" having an outlet for their views. I do object to paying for it!
5. "Sharpe" stated in the programme that the British Army is undermanned by 1300 infantry men, and with this knowledge took the place of a recruit who may well have gone on to serve his Country. The current Operational Tempo is such that our Armed Forces are even more stretched - and they ARE stretched - than they were when I left some 12 years ago. That in itself shows gross misjudgment on the part of both himself and the BBC. They have deprived a fighting unit of a trained soldier and possibly some infantryman of his life as a vacancy was filled which could have been taken up by someone who was prepared to be counted when the time came to serve. It is almost impossible for me to express my level for of disgust.
6. "Sharpe" and BBC should be made to recompense the Army for the money it expended on training, remuneration etc and issue a public apology. I would also ask that you direct HMRC in the direction of "Sharpe's" bank account to ensure the correct amount of tax has been paid. In an ideal world prosecutions would also take place but I fear this is not to be.
7. I realize raising a Debate in the House is unlikely but I would ask that you raise this topic with as many of your colleagues as possible. The entire situation is a disgrace, particularly the behaviour of the BBC.
Yours Sincerely
Major (Retired) R-M
________________
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
19 September 2008
17:116334#3
BarryW Im not following you on this one...you havent seen the programme but are still calling for the BBC to have their license fee taken away. You are also getting the view from soldiers only - which of course would be entirely one sided and therefore would not have the full picture.
This form of investigative journalism is accepted practise and has over the years revealed allsorts of horrors that would otherwise go undiscovered. One thinks of the De Lorean thing all those years ago, and of course many more since.
Of course I didnt see the programme either or I would have said so earlier but am just making this general point.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
19 September 2008
17:576336#4
Don't worry about missing last nights programme its bound to be repeated.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 September 2008
17:596337#5
PaulB - I have been reading a lot about this and the worse abuse found was when a corporal peed on a recruit's boot, big deal...
The reporter was complaining about being shouted at among other things, again, so what.
You really should see what the troops think about this, do log on...
It is utterly unimportant what we civvies think, we are not the ones whos lives have to depend on the quality of the training thats going on and the discipline being instilled into the recruits.
The Royal Marine Major's letter says it all really. The BBC are a disgrace to this country.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
19 September 2008
18:156341#6
Now don't get excited Barry but on this one I agree with you.
It's no good having soft drips defending the nation we need to maintain the disciplines we have now and the result we have is the finest fighting force in the world.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
19 September 2008
19:196346#7
I agree 100% with Barry it is a total disgrace and I would think all serving personnel and ex service personnel will be disgusted with this cowardly intrusion onto military service.
The BBC should get its own house in order with discipline before undermining our armed forces. How much money did the BBC and ITV staff con out of the public with false "phone ins". Internal discipline certainly is not something they can brag.
Discipline comes from getting some one to take action with out in the main asking why. You do not get that by saying "Please jump over that big wall and then if you don't mind would you please be good enough to run 5 miles with a telegraph pole.
Being bawled at, having your kit chucked at you, being made to do what you do not want to do is all part of getting you to jump to it. Once you have the discipline installed, life in the forces is so much easier, that's why employers like to be able to employ servicemen & woman coming out.
This undercover idiot should have been made to go to Afghanistan as a soldier before they let him out, but then cowards do not like action.
There is of course a line to be drawn between military discipline and bullying and on the odd occasion that line may get crossed, but that I am sure is the exception and the forces do not tolerate bullies.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
19 September 2008
19:326347#8
Out of curiosity, following what happened at Deepcut barracks, did the Army introduce any measures to combat alleged bullying? I am aware that there were open verdicts in three cases and a suicide verdict in another.
BBC are often pulling stunts like this. They once planted a member of staff in Group 4 to investigate and record alleged abuse of Immigration detainees. They found precisely nothing, but still managed to put a spin on the programme that would convince it takes place.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 September 2008
09:196363#9
Phil, they did indeed and the BBC justify this by claiming to test these measures. The fact is that after 5 months they have very little to show.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 September 2008
10:106364#10
I hope this is true and if so, that they do it..... serves the little s**t right.
Pity about the sources though....The Sun...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BBC reporter who joined the Army to expose bullying may be sent to war,
It emerged yesterday.
Russell Sharp, 25, did 15 weeks before lying so he could quit on "compassionate" grounds.
And last night after furious top brass found out who he was they threatened to haul him back to complete his training — and send him into action.
Senior officers hit the roof because Sharp, whose TV film Undercover Soldier was screened on Thursday, had only a week left of the 16-week course at Catterick, North Yorks, when he said his "girlfriend" was expecting.
She turned out to be a fellow undercover Beeb reporter who was NOT pregnant.
One of the officers demanding Sharp be held to the four-year stint he signed up for stormed: "It cost £19,000 to train him and now we are one soldier down. It would teach him a lesson."
Sharp's programme did not show any filmed evidence of ill-treatment, though he claimed to have witnessed it.
The MoD refused to comment but a senior source confirmed: "The Army could bring Private Sharp back to finish his training. We could even consider options to deploy him to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"""""""""""""""
Mind you, would you want such a useless idiot in your platoon. I suspect he would find out what bullying actially is should this happen. Still would be good to do though and would serve him right.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
20 September 2008
12:056365#11
BAZ
I agree with you to a point but there has been new recruits to the army who have been seriously injured or even died on training so you have to draw the line somewhere
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
20 September 2008
14:316371#12
Again Barry, only up to a point, there needs to be a check on claims that problems have been dealt with so the BBC are as good as anything just the methods are possibly questionable. My concern here is that the army sees posting to Iraq or Afghanistan as a punishment. This does not say a lot for how they think of the regulars who serve this country so well.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
20 September 2008
15:556372#13
Not a punishment, Chris, a consequence - they are different. I am in favour of consequences!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 September 2008
19:456374#14
I agree Bern. He signed up to serve 4 years with no intention of fulfilling the contract, unlike those who drop out having signed up in good faith. As a result of his fraudulent action he should be required to fulfill the contract and serve the four years including on the front line. Perhaps then he would appreciate why the training is as it is and not be such a cry-baby.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
21 September 2008
07:256375#15
Agree with you Barry, he should have to honour the 4 years he signed for and have to go into action.
However I am not sure our troops would want him there with them, I know I would not want him watching my back.
