Military ethos and Diversity?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
NutLoose
I think you are right as to what I think you’re getting at.
I absolutely disagree with D&I quotas - they are total nonsense when the main aim is to WIN and not just compete - you have to pick your very best regardless of appearance. That is the real problem here. You need your best people to be in the roles that most suit them and not be there because of some quota. If you had one of the Woke’s “must reflect the make up of UK society’s population’ in a 4x 100m relay team, well guess what they would probably lose. How many 100m champions have been Caucasian in recent years? Not very many - Alan Wells was the last Caucasian to win and he needed the invasion of Afghanistan to stop many of the likely winning Afro-Caribbean athletes to turn up in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The answer lay within genes, not quotas, and that is the ACTN3 gene. This encodes instructions to create a protein called alpha-actinin-3, which helps muscles generate strong, repetitive contractions. Like the ACE gene, it comes in different types. The desirable variant for a sprinter is known as 577RR. While only 70% of US international-standard athletes have the desirable variant, 75% of Jamaicans have it whether they are athletes or not. That is why Jamaica has a highly successful set of sprint teams and somewhere like Finland has never won an Olympic sprint title (they win theirs for other sports that their majority racial make up is better suited to).
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.01080/full
Now the Wokes can try and fight the science, but you can’t really, as it is very objective. Of course there are exceptions, but we’re looking at the statistical norms. If we pitched certain members of UK society against others, then on average, a majority would be better at one thing than another - it’s just how nature works, and there will be areas of society that are better suited to certain roles than others.
It is also highly likely that Russia is influencing the West’s thinking on equality and diversity to gain a combat advantage. They have been doing it for years and they continue to do so today. Yuri Bezmenov told the West all about it many years ago, but fools continue with their D&I crusade with quotas because they believe it makes them look good, and it feels like the right thing to do (which it is, if you aren’t prepared to win at all costs), whilst softening the very forces that they command. We want the very best, regardless of appearance or background, to fill our various roles in the Armed Forces - it is all about WINNING and modern moral messaging has no place when it comes to nation on nation warfighting and ensuring that you have the very best people in your team (like the UK’s 4x 100m team).
Here is Yuri, have a listen and then think about what is going on in our world right now to the East.
I think you are right as to what I think you’re getting at.
I absolutely disagree with D&I quotas - they are total nonsense when the main aim is to WIN and not just compete - you have to pick your very best regardless of appearance. That is the real problem here. You need your best people to be in the roles that most suit them and not be there because of some quota. If you had one of the Woke’s “must reflect the make up of UK society’s population’ in a 4x 100m relay team, well guess what they would probably lose. How many 100m champions have been Caucasian in recent years? Not very many - Alan Wells was the last Caucasian to win and he needed the invasion of Afghanistan to stop many of the likely winning Afro-Caribbean athletes to turn up in the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The answer lay within genes, not quotas, and that is the ACTN3 gene. This encodes instructions to create a protein called alpha-actinin-3, which helps muscles generate strong, repetitive contractions. Like the ACE gene, it comes in different types. The desirable variant for a sprinter is known as 577RR. While only 70% of US international-standard athletes have the desirable variant, 75% of Jamaicans have it whether they are athletes or not. That is why Jamaica has a highly successful set of sprint teams and somewhere like Finland has never won an Olympic sprint title (they win theirs for other sports that their majority racial make up is better suited to).
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...017.01080/full
Now the Wokes can try and fight the science, but you can’t really, as it is very objective. Of course there are exceptions, but we’re looking at the statistical norms. If we pitched certain members of UK society against others, then on average, a majority would be better at one thing than another - it’s just how nature works, and there will be areas of society that are better suited to certain roles than others.
It is also highly likely that Russia is influencing the West’s thinking on equality and diversity to gain a combat advantage. They have been doing it for years and they continue to do so today. Yuri Bezmenov told the West all about it many years ago, but fools continue with their D&I crusade with quotas because they believe it makes them look good, and it feels like the right thing to do (which it is, if you aren’t prepared to win at all costs), whilst softening the very forces that they command. We want the very best, regardless of appearance or background, to fill our various roles in the Armed Forces - it is all about WINNING and modern moral messaging has no place when it comes to nation on nation warfighting and ensuring that you have the very best people in your team (like the UK’s 4x 100m team).
Here is Yuri, have a listen and then think about what is going on in our world right now to the East.
I don not care a Flying D**k what colour, gender/:sex or ethnicity somebody is. Can they do the job?? Will they protect my A**e in a conflict situation?? That
is what it is all about. If you are in the SH1T can you all work together. My experience is YES.
is what it is all about. If you are in the SH1T can you all work together. My experience is YES.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Longer versions including China’s and The UK’s
the Chinese one is mega impressive.
the Chinese one is mega impressive.
We have come so far yet still feel the need to have a month se aside to celebrate diversity!
i saw huge change for the better during my time in many areas of diversity & Inclusion........ though also experienced many difficulties as a manager in my role as an unqualified or trained social worker.
.
i saw huge change for the better during my time in many areas of diversity & Inclusion........ though also experienced many difficulties as a manager in my role as an unqualified or trained social worker.
.
Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?
I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.
I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.
You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.
I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
But as recruitment is failing to meet their targets, does that not also tell you they are targeting the wrong demographic?
I think it depends on how you see a war effort - as individuals who kill or something like a team. In the end the whole population is the team and to get it to be equally committed it must think it is going to be equally treated. If you don't care about that your national effort won't be at it's highest possible level and you might lose.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I came here to the forum to post a picture of the chinny memorial in the Falklands, but forum rules dictate i need to post 10 times to allow that, so have visited a number of discussions to get my quota up. As a previous poster some years back (BTS70) i had to apply for new membership due to email change, often look never felt the need to post on regular basis.
Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?
I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.
I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.
You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.
I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.
Seems to be a level of suspicion on this forum for new members?
I served 1988 to 2019, from Airframes mechanic to Engineering manager holding airworthiness risk on an aging platform of upto 26 frames managing upto 100 personnel.
I have seen & done stuff & to be honest possibly hold more worthy first hand experience than some of the posters on here to add comment to some discussions.
You wonder what my cricklade background is?, strange question, simple forum question on registering ....... where do you live, i live in a house in Cricklade.
I will get my 10 posts in then post my memorial picture to assist the poster & if this line of questioning is anything to go by will leave the forum to the small band of posters who obviously are above question.
I cannot fathom it out either why anyone should query a new guys posts, stay around,
EX RAF Eng Tech now multi trade licences, nominated Engineer , Chief Engineer and chief bottle washer licenced on several hundred types and still enjoying it…. Bar the damn paperwork.
Letter in the DT on 4 Jan 17 from Lt Col Ewen Southby Tailyour is relevant.
I remember the military advertising campaign having removed any references to camouflage or combat clothing and guns, showing only volleyball, beers in the bar, and back slapping.
I also recall watching recruits refuse to fire weapons in basic training - saying “I didn’t sign up for this!
Dare I say it, but military advertising should be more truthful, if they wish to hire suitable candidates.
I also recall watching recruits refuse to fire weapons in basic training - saying “I didn’t sign up for this!
Dare I say it, but military advertising should be more truthful, if they wish to hire suitable candidates.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He’s rather missing the point though. ‘Representing society’ does not mean that we have to compromise on the physical, behavioural or professional standards of the force. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.
He’s rather missing the point though. ‘Representing society’ does not mean that we have to compromise on the physical, behavioural or professional standards of the force. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.
Some points as a general observation:
1) Promoting a sense of inclusion and having diversity in your force does not mean changing your entry standards *where those are directly related to job requirements that are legitimate*.
2) The wider your recruitment pool, the higher your entry standards can be. We all know that aptitude test score requirements, as an example, go up and down depending on how many people have applied that year (i.e. an applicant has to be competitive within their cohort). The bigger the cohort, the higher the standards can be (which some people seem to struggle to understand).
3) A common complaint is that advertising always includes the 'minorities'. This is simply a method of normalising to the target audience the fact that people in 'minorities' can and do serve, which in turn increases the likelihood they will apply to serve. See point 2 above.
4) The argument that having a diverse and inclusive force, including spending some time reflecting on the fact that it's a good thing, somehow decreases your fighting power is a totally non-sequitur statement. As many have pointed out, the military as a whole is considerably more diverse than 40 years ago, spends some time thinking about that, and yet we still see them going out the door at an ever increasing tempo that would break a lot of people. The evidence there speaks for itself.
5) There are quite a few roles in today's mob (looking at you, cyber) who are just as vital to national security as infantry, but their job will NEVER involve closing with and killing the enemy, because they can have a far greater impact from their normal place of work. Why the hell shouldn't we recruit anyone who can do the job into that role, regardless of their ability to run shuttles between 2 lines at an ever increasing pace?
Thread Starter
I think it depends on how you see a war effort - as individuals who kill or something like a team. In the end the whole population is the team and to get it to be equally committed it must think it is going to be equally treated. If you don't care about that your national effort won't be at it's highest possible level and you might lose.
The reason is, having checked his voting record, and assuming it to be correct and accurate, he has consistently voted to oppose military action against Isis/Daesh, cast your mind back to the threat they posed back in 2014, he has also consistently voted to oppose deploying British Forces on overseas operations, under any circumstances. But there are people who would vote for his party in a General Election who couldn't give to hoots about that. The nation is diverse in all kinds of ways, the Armed Forces would be better recruiting with a sense of honesty rather than trying to emphasize attracting a mindset which might join out of curiosity or even with genuine interest before leaving after feeling misled, possibly the reason for poor retention. The Western Democracies are all very much the same, they've forgotten that round pegs don't fit in square holes and vice versa. While it is fair and right that anyone from any background regardless of race and gender should be welcomed into the armed forces, the armed forces should not be emphasizing or trying to identify and associate with a specific group, to closely, by doing so, the defence chiefs are misrepresenting their profession and confusing their ethos with something else. They should recruit without fear or favour and close their eyes to the individuals religion, personal life and behaviour, leave all that out, and portray what they are about. I notice the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in their recruitment campaigns, still pursue a more honest line.
Right I'm off to the Bunker!
FB
If recruiting for the Forces is missing its targets then perhaps the powers that be should look at the Ts and Cs rather than the demographic spread.
Constant cuts to the UK Military, regular articles on the p*ss poor housing and the increasing reliance on the UK Mil to dig civil institutions out of the poo because their own manpower and resources have been pared to the bone don't make for attractive job prospects.
Constant cuts to the UK Military, regular articles on the p*ss poor housing and the increasing reliance on the UK Mil to dig civil institutions out of the poo because their own manpower and resources have been pared to the bone don't make for attractive job prospects.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole population isn't the team, we're a Liberal Democracy, that means we have to accommodate a sizeable chunk of the population who will never understand any justification for relying on the armed forces for doing anything, or only in certain circumstances. The leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, often thought of as the kind of moderate who would take his party back to the centre ground, is not someone I would trust of Foreign and Defence Policy.
The reason is, having checked his voting record, and assuming it to be correct and accurate, he has consistently voted to oppose military action against Isis/Daesh, cast your mind back to the threat they posed back in 2014, he has also consistently voted to oppose deploying British Forces on overseas operations, under any circumstances. But there are people who would vote for his party in a General Election who couldn't give to hoots about that. The nation is diverse in all kinds of ways, the Armed Forces would be better recruiting with a sense of honesty rather than trying to emphasize attracting a mindset which might join out of curiosity or even with genuine interest before leaving after feeling misled, possibly the reason for poor retention. The Western Democracies are all very much the same, they've forgotten that round pegs don't fit in square holes and vice versa. While it is fair and right that anyone from any background regardless of race and gender should be welcomed into the armed forces, the armed forces should not be emphasizing or trying to identify and associate with a specific group, to closely, by doing so, the defence chiefs are misrepresenting their profession and confusing their ethos with something else. They should recruit without fear or favour and close their eyes to the individuals religion, personal life and behaviour, leave all that out, and portray what they are about. I notice the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in their recruitment campaigns, still pursue a more honest line.
Right I'm off to the Bunker!
FB
The reason is, having checked his voting record, and assuming it to be correct and accurate, he has consistently voted to oppose military action against Isis/Daesh, cast your mind back to the threat they posed back in 2014, he has also consistently voted to oppose deploying British Forces on overseas operations, under any circumstances. But there are people who would vote for his party in a General Election who couldn't give to hoots about that. The nation is diverse in all kinds of ways, the Armed Forces would be better recruiting with a sense of honesty rather than trying to emphasize attracting a mindset which might join out of curiosity or even with genuine interest before leaving after feeling misled, possibly the reason for poor retention. The Western Democracies are all very much the same, they've forgotten that round pegs don't fit in square holes and vice versa. While it is fair and right that anyone from any background regardless of race and gender should be welcomed into the armed forces, the armed forces should not be emphasizing or trying to identify and associate with a specific group, to closely, by doing so, the defence chiefs are misrepresenting their profession and confusing their ethos with something else. They should recruit without fear or favour and close their eyes to the individuals religion, personal life and behaviour, leave all that out, and portray what they are about. I notice the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in their recruitment campaigns, still pursue a more honest line.
Right I'm off to the Bunker!
FB
More broadly, if you contend that the present lot have been efficient stewards of our fighting power, then I’m afraid I can’t agree. We seem to be in something of a muddle, both in terms of our equipment programmes and our broader purpose. The first is due in large part to inefficiency (as charitable as I can be) in uniform, but political interference plays a significant role too. And the second is political/strategic, and that really does point to Government.
Anyhow, the broader point is not that the Army is ‘pandering’ to anyone. We’re trying to strengthen the team by reducing the instances of our people harming one another at worst, and failing to form cohesive teams at best. It is interesting to note that Russia has done likewise - they recognised that the appalling conditions that prevailed in a conscript force paid exploitative wages and bullied by feral NCOs did not contribute to fighting power. The Russian army of today is better paid, better led and rather more professional than they were a generation ago.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
. It might mean that we can accept that not everyone we ask to carry a GPMG or drive a Typhoon needs to be white, straight or male. I know this isn’t controversial any more, but to take it one step further (because this is what 8 Feb is about), we have to recognise that still some people in the Army (and, I promise you, in the RAF and RN too) continue to have appalling experiences at the hands of other service personnel. It might not be a majority, but it’s a lot more than you may think, and every one we lose - because we break them or drive them out, or because they earn themselves prison or a discharge, is one bayonet fewer. That’s why this matters, and why CGS is leading this. It’s not just the right thing to do - it’s a matter of hard military utility.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that’s depressing reading and is indicative of the times we live in and is probably ingrained into their personality long before the military got their hands on them. My service time we all got along great, all working together as a cohesive group, it never occurred to me that the guy next to me at work was coloured or Asian, we just all got on, beer is a great leveller after a hard days work. The only difference being that gay was illegal, but again at the time it was the rules and people accepted them, though not all agreed with them. I knew one great guy who had to leave and he accepted his fate, though we were all sad to see him go as was he.
I have always had a lurking fear that, casualties aside, one reason for the extreme youth of many of the towering personalities of WW2 was that hidebound military custom gave way to necessity, and the bright and innovative prospered.