Originally Posted by benwavner
I understand your points John_D80 and you may be right about the guy. I personally think he is a multiple account holder who opened this one to troll.
I know guys who left 10 years ago and only lasted a few weeks of recruit training, they refer to where they served as a "barracks" etc. If he spent 5 hard years in the DF, im sure he knew he spent that time in a Barracks.
"But gents, to dismiss someones posts as trolling or lying because they dont use the same terminology or phrases as someone in the military is rather unfair. There are people from a very broad spectrum of backgrounds among the enlisted ranks. In my recruit platoon, the only guy who had a degree was buddied with one of the guys who couldn't read. I know officers who are from the roughest/toughest parts of cork and limerick cities and walk and talk the part as well. Basically guys what i'm getting at is that we are as much a product of our background as we are of our current surroundings
^^^I dont know what the above has anything to do with anything^^^
I have no problem with someone posting negative comments about the DF in here, but I would like them to come from someone with experience in the DF, who gave it a good crack and did not leave for an obscure reason.
I find it unlikely that this guy served, if he PM'd me any of the following I would believe him and engage with him properly on here:
- Unit(s) served in
- Exercises completed
- Overseas missions he went on, or could have volunteered for
- What is A7..........The Glen of Imaal kind
- Courses completed, and where they were held
- What weapon would you find a "Pre-notched, spiral wound, steel wire sleeve" to be part of.
If he cant answer any of these, then he either did not last recruit training or else he is a Walt, just posting to defame the DF.
If he did serve, then I am saddend that such a quality soldier was forced to leave because of bullying and intimidation and would like to converse with the guy and get into the nitty gritty.
If he is a Walt, he is spredding an untrue experience and further damaging the reputation of the DF and all who serve(d), without due cause. I feel he should answer one of the above in the interest of transparency.
I'm very wary of someone currently in the DF looking for my personal information and to PM you does not ensure my anonymity. And I have no interest in getting into this in a public forum or by email just to satisfy your ego as again after five years I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm being obscure in my use of military so not to draw to much attention to myself or my unit, obviously I'm not in the 'Air Corps' and I know nothing about the place but the other two, I know plenty, and I'm entitled to say what I like about the DF as it did me enough damage. Read between the lines and get over the idea that someone would go to all this effort just to troll, sure how could anyone think like that about the beloved defense forces. And in the eight years I have forgotten most of the terminology except the stuff thats burned into my brain like how to strip and clean a Styer, a GPMG, how the action works, and crap like that. I don't remember anything about the myriad of forms that I had to full out, or what kind of wounds weapons caused. And what the **** is a 'walt' I never heard of that. And if I'm "further damaging the reputation of the DF" who has already damaged it, and for what reason. I've got a gripe, and your a cheerleader lets agree to disagree.
John D80 if you want to make this personal, then go ahead but remember their are consequences to everything and to dismiss me as a knob is in itself a bullying tactic. Just because I know myself and my capabilities does that indicate an over inflated opinion of myself. I thought I was a piece of **** with a really low opinion of myself for eight years what does that say about my character. You sound very familiar to the type of character that I would have experienced, dismissing all my behavior with a quick insult for your own end. Below is a publication implemented into the defense forces in 2001, 3 years into my time, now ask yourself why? Was their a problem?
SECTION 6 BULLYING
130. Definition of Bullying
Bullying is defined as repeated inappropriate behavior, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behavior described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but as a once-off incident is not considered to be bullying. (Government Task Force on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying,2001)
131. Behaviour falling within the scope of para 130 above constitutes unacceptable behavior in the Defence Forces.
132. Bullying can be perpetrated not only by a superior on a subordinate, but also by a peer on another peer, or by a subordinate on a superior, or by a group to constitute unacceptable behavior.
133. Bullying must be distinguished from the proper use of rank and authority which is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives. Bullying is, in fact, the misuse of rank and authority. Operational effectiveness requires the Defence Forces to be physically strong and robust and, when needed, to display controlled aggression. This is not achieved by bullying. It is the responsibility of commanders at all levels to protect individuals from both physical and mental intimidation by peers or persons in positions of authority. Initiation ceremonies involving assault, humiliation, intimidation, or the abuse of alcohol are unacceptable.
134. The monitoring, review and evaluation of performance is an essential part of the command function. All superiors are required to effectively monitor the performance of their subordinates. It is the duty of superiors to be open with subordinates about performance, attendance or general conduct. Effective supervision may require critical comments to individuals about issues relevant to their official duties. However, such criticism should not be personalised but directed against the conduct or performance of a subordinate. Bullying does not arise, where critical comments are made in an honest and constructive manner.
The list of examples, below, should be regarded as illustrative rather than exhaustive:
Eyeballing or shouting into a person’s face.
Preventing the victim from speaking by using aggressive and/or obscene language.
Subjecting an individual to unreasonable scrutiny.
Swearing or other forms of demeaning name-calling.
Physical abuse or threats of abuse.
Physically attacking, threatening to attack or acting in a menacing way towards another person.
Gratuitous commenting on the appearance of another person
Setting unreasonable or impossible deadlines or impossible or meaningless tasks.
Unwarranted or disproportionate criticism unsupported by facts of an individual's work performance.
Manipulation of the victim's reputation by rumour, gossip, ridicule and/or innuendo.
Making an individual, his or her beliefs or opinions, the butt of jokes or uncomplimentary remarks which are likely to cause offence.
Social exclusion or isolation; deliberately ignoring or excluding an individual on a persistent basis.
Undermining the authority of a colleague in the workplace.
Manipulating the nature of the work or the ability of the victim to perform the work, for example by withholding information in order to undermine a colleague.
The first lot of these I would consider normal robust military training even if they are now classed as bullying and it never bothered me and in most cases amused me, as the individuals who confront you to your face are the ones you can trust and the ones just doing their job its the latter of these that caused most of the problems. If I had a problem the former I would have left in recruits, its the latter that drove me out after 5 years.