Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

OxfordColours · 12-01-2017 11:25PM

He now works with some of the victim families of the Dublin Monaghan bombing. That event was pivotal for his exit.
I am interested in the context of this thread topic in how other Irish soldiers justify their membership. Does pay and opportunity trump conscience for instance.
Not really interested in the opinion of somebody who would excuse the activity of a force which was supposed to be impartial.

Where's the conscience aspect? As far as I can see, the reasonable members of Irish society see no problem with it. But there's a small section of Irish society who think their minority view is the one true viewpoint on the ideals of 'Irish conscience'.

FrancieBrady · 12-01-2017 11:29PM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Where's the conscience aspect? As far as I can see, the reasonable members of Irish society see no problem with it. But there's a small section of Irish society who think their minority view is the one true viewpoint on the ideals of 'Irish conscience'.

Its a 'discussion' forum. There is no anointed opinion. Neither yours or mine.
There are people in Ireland who have a problem with it.

maryishere · 12-01-2017 11:32PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would even defend Francie Bradys right to an opinion and to express it, and to vote accordingly in elections etc. However Oxfordcolours has a point, there is a small section of Irish society who think their minority view is the one true viewpoint.

FrancieBrady · 12-01-2017 11:38PM

maryishere wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would even defend Francie Bradys right to an opinion and to express it, and to vote accordingly in elections etc. However Oxfordcolours has a point, there is a small section of Irish society who think their minority view is the one true viewpoint.

Believing passionately in your view is not the same as thinking it is the only true one.

Elemonator · 12-01-2017 11:44PM

Not really surprised if you want to be a pilot. There is no Irish Air Force really. The Air Corps is a part of the Army, and they maintain low numbers of pilots and aircraft with low speed in context to the R.A.F.

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2017 11:48PM

Elemonator wrote: »

Not really surprised if you want to be a pilot. There is no Air Force really. The Air Corps is a part of the Army, and they maintain low numbers of pilots and aircraft with low speed in context to the R.A.F.

Only british citizens can become pilots in the RAF.

Elemonator · 12-01-2017 11:52PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Only british citizens can become pilots in the RAF.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/how-to-apply/eligibility-check/

NATIONALITY & RESIDENCY

NATIONALITY
To meet RAF nationality requirements, you need to be one of the following:

British citizen
British national
British/Dual national
Commonwealth citizen
Irish Republic national

12-01-2017 11:55PM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Are you saying you are some sort of truly impartial man with the abilty to take in the history without any sort of bias?

I'm harsh on imperialism and empire building, which Britain was undeniably involved in. If you read maryishere's past posts on these topics you'll find she is anything but, especially where the Brits are involved.

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2017 11:59PM

Elemonator wrote: »

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/how-to-apply/eligibility-check/

NATIONALITY & RESIDENCY

NATIONALITY
To meet RAF nationality requirements, you need to be one of the following:

British citizen
British national
British/Dual national
Commonwealth citizen
Republic national

Pick pilot from the list of roles and the role specific requirements are displayed on the right hand column.

You must be a citizen of the United Kingdom or holder of dual UK/ other nationality.

Whether or not you were born in the United Kingdom, you should have resided there for the 5 years immediately preceding your application.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 12:03AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Only british citizens can become pilots in the RAF.

Incidently is there a ceiling on how high you can go in the army, navy etc?

Elemonator · 13-01-2017 12:03AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pick pilot from the list of roles and the role specific requirements are displayed on the right hand column.

Didn't spot that. Luckily there are eagle eyed people such as yourself

I actually never checked out that section. Not considering the BA by any means but I'm a dual national so I never need to check anyway.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 12:08AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pick pilot from the list of roles and the role specific requirements are displayed on the right hand column.

Why is that? Not trusted with the dear stuff?

OxfordColours · 13-01-2017 01:04AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Incidently is there a ceiling on how high you can go in the army, navy etc?

There is, and there isn't. If you've been in the forces for 5 years, you can apply for a passport through the chain of command / passport office. You will need citizenship for certain posts, related to Intelligence / Piloting / EOD etc, but these are limited. Mostly, they only need 5 years residency. Mostly.

OxfordColours · 13-01-2017 01:06AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why is that? Not trusted with the dear stuff?

Because as a pilot you very much can change the course of history if you have some underhanded deeds in mind. So what you do need is 10 years residency (which means they can retrace 10 years of your movements) so that they can assure themselves that you wont go do something stupid.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 01:25AM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Because as a pilot you very much can change the course of history if you have some underhanded deeds in mind. So what you do need is 10 years residency (which means they can retrace 10 years of your movements) so that they can assure themselves that you wont go do something stupid.

I'd find that hard to accept as well in a career. The implied mistrust and, if I understand your previous post, an invisible ceiling.

OxfordColours · 13-01-2017 02:25AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd find that hard to accept as well in a career. The implied mistrust and, if I understand your previous post, an invisible ceiling.

It's not an implied mistrust. If you are a British passport holder who has lived abroad for 2 years out of the previous ten, you don't get accepted either. There has to be some level of background checks. You need to trust, but verify. There's no invisible ceiling, just simple common sense. If you can't verify someones background, should you trust them implicitly on their word?

BalcombeSt4 · 13-01-2017 08:50AM

maryishere wrote: »

They were on the side of law and order. The vast majority of the 300,000 who served there did not break the law or kill others - otherwise the death toll would have been much higher. Far more British soldiers lost their lives in the troubles than there were people killed by the British Army. There is never any sectarian tension in the B.Army because that would not be permitted, and many of the officers in the Irish regiments of the ba are catholics.

There seemed to be plenty in it when when they looted homes & destroyed "holy" pictures & statues & shot dead 5 Catholic civilians during the Falls Curfew.

BalcombeSt4 · 13-01-2017 09:09AM

maryishere wrote: »

Being a soldier in an EU or G7 country is just a job, a sort of public service job to some people I guess - some would I guess like the outdoors, adventure, training etc. I guess a there are still not a lot of opportunities for some people here in Ireland. According to an experienced Irish soldier (in the B.Army ) on the radio recently, he said there was never any discrimination or sectarianism in the B.A., and they were a great bunch of lads.

I would imagine the conscience of the average British Army soldier is clearer than the people (or their supporters) who planted the Enniskillen, Le Mons, Warrington, Belfast etc bombs.

I would expect all members to obey the law, and believe most do and did. Unlike you, I do not excuse people who resorted to violence / broke the law, and I would condemn them.

Or the people who carried out
Benny's Bar bombing
Ramble Inn
McGurks
Dublin 1972
Dublin 1973
Dublin & Monaghan
Dublin Airport Bombing
Rose & Crown Bar
Kellys Bar
Miami Showband
Reavey & O'Dowd killings
Hillcrest Bar
Chlorane Bar
Belfast & Coleraine attacks
Stepp Inn
Miltown Cemetary
Avenue Bar
Sean Grahams Bookmakers
James Murray's Bookmakers
Greysteel
Loughingisland
Quinn Brothers firebombing
Paddy Wilson & Irene Andrews
Not to mention the Butchers or Glennane.

"One man, allegedly Stephen McKeag, opened fire on the customers with a Vz58 assault rifle and another volunteer, reportedly C Company's second-in-command, threw a Soviet-made fragmentation grenade, shouting "Youse deserve it, youse Fenian bastards" as he did so"

And that's only Loyalists not the massacres carried out by the British Army themselves (I mentioned the Falls Curfew) or acts of collusion

Most of these events recevied half the media coverage Republican outrages did, thats mabye why your so mixed up & the propaganda has you by the noes.

The truth is a pint of British blood is worth more than a pint of Irish blood.

Jawgap · 13-01-2017 09:16AM

OxfordColours wrote: »

Because as a pilot you very much can change the course of history if you have some underhanded deeds in mind. So what you do need is 10 years residency (which means they can retrace 10 years of your movements) so that they can assure themselves that you wont go do something stupid.

Actually, it's more to do with access to sensitive and secretive tech.

It'll be even more important when they the F-35s online.

Not surprised recruitment is up - young lads really don't care about history etc they see it as a form of 'extreme sports' then get bound in by the camaraderie.

They don't go off to fight for "queen and country" they go for the same reason they've gone since Marius......because their mate is going

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 09:31AM

OxfordColours wrote: »

It's not an implied mistrust. If you are a British passport holder who has lived abroad for 2 years out of the previous ten, you don't get accepted either. There has to be some level of background checks. You need to trust, but verify. There's no invisible ceiling, just simple common sense. If you can't verify someones background, should you trust them implicitly on their word?

Of course it is 'mistrust' if there is, as you say, a bar on nobody but citizens flying a plane. If you take into account that most of the acts of violence on Britain in the last 50 years have been carried out by people who would have been qualified to fly a plane in the RAF.
It's the silent 'hat doffing' again, and the acceptance of inferiority, that you see from a number on here.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 09:32AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, it's more to do with access to sensitive and secretive tech.

It'll be even more important when they the F-35s online.

Not surprised recruitment is up - young lads really don't care about history etc they see it as a form of 'extreme sports' then get bound in by the camaraderie.

They don't go off to fight for "queen and country" they go for the same reason they've gone since Marius......because their mate is going

'Some' young lads. A particular type of young lad imo.

Jawgap · 13-01-2017 09:37AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Some' young lads. A particular type of young lad imo.

Yeah, probably the type who has a bit of ambition.

The BA offer more commissions to enlisted personnel than just about every other army in Europe.

Probably depends on the type of soldiering you want to do, but they're a decent alternative to going into the DF here.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 09:47AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, probably the type who has a bit of ambition.

The BA offer more commissions to enlisted personnel than just about every other army in Europe.

Probably depends on the type of soldiering you want to do, but they're a decent alternative to going into the DF here.

Limited 'ambition' it seems. Peculiar in an age that has seen women fight the existence of ceilings barring their progress. Even if they might never get to the top the principle is important.
Good to see the small numbers subscribing to this.

Jawgap · 13-01-2017 10:02AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Limited 'ambition' it seems. Peculiar in an age that has seen women fight the existence of ceilings barring their progress. Even if they might never get to the top the principle is important.
Good to see the small numbers subscribing to this.

Depends on your ambition.

I know one lad who signed up a few years ago and when he's home tells us he's doing things he'd never dreamed of doing and other stuff he's always enjoyed doing he gets to do in places he'd never otherwise have had the opportunity.

In his own words, he's spent the last few years (first few years of his term of enlistment) getting it all out of his system and now he's moving to do something more specialised.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 10:07AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Depends on your ambition.

I know one lad who signed up a few years ago and when he's home tells us he's doing things he'd never dreamed of doing and other stuff he's always enjoyed doing he gets to do in places he'd never otherwise have had the opportunity.

In his own words, he's spent the last few years (first few years of his term of enlistment) getting it all out of his system and now he's moving to do something more specialised.

I honestly would hate to raise a child that would join any army for the 'thrills'. Joining an army (any army) should be a conscientious decision first and foremost.
It's a bit archaic to be getting your thrills playing with killing machines imo.

Jawgap · 13-01-2017 10:14AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I honestly would hate to raise a child that would join any army for the 'thrills'. Joining an army (any army) should be a conscientious decision first and foremost.
It's a bit archaic to be getting your thrills playing with killing machines imo.

Maybe it should, and it actually is a minority of cases, but in the vast majority of cases it is to do with economic and sociological reasons.

And it's important to distinguish between joining for thrills which some do and going into combat for thrills which very, very few do. They fight for the guy next to them, not for queen or country or any of that nonsense.

The lad I referred to joined because he wanted to soldier, learning to ski and parachute came as an unexepected but nice side benefit, as did mountain biking in the Rockies.

He's had more than one combat tour, and while he talks very little about it, I get the sense it would be wrong to say he 'enjoyed' it but he seems very quietly satisfied that he went, he lived up the expectation of his comrades and didn't let them down.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 10:27AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe it should, and it actually is a minority of cases, but in the vast majority of cases it is to do with economic and sociological reasons.

And it's important to distinguish between joining for thrills which some do and going into combat for thrills which very, very few do. They fight for the guy next to them, not for queen or country or any of that nonsense.

The lad I referred to joined because he wanted to soldier, learning to ski and parachute came as an unexepected but nice side benefit, as did mountain biking in the Rockies.

He's had more than one combat tour, and while he talks very little about it, I get the sense it would be wrong to say he 'enjoyed' it but he seems very quietly satisfied that he went, he lived up the expectation of his comrades and didn't let them down.

I have no doubt it is to do with 'economic and sociological reasons'. Armies capitalise on drawing the bulk of their numbers from those in the minus end of those categories.
They used to be referred to as 'cannon fodder'. Not an ambition of mine for myself or any child of mine tbh.

ohnonotgmail · 13-01-2017 10:28AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it is 'mistrust' if there is, as you say, a bar on nobody but citizens flying a plane. If you take into account that most of the acts of violence on Britain in the last 50 years have been carried out by people who would have been qualified to fly a plane in the RAF.
It's the silent 'hat doffing' again, and the acceptance of inferiority, that you see from a number on here.

would you ever give over your nonsense.

FrancieBrady · 13-01-2017 10:32AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would you ever give over your nonsense.

Most if not all acts of violence in Britain in the last 50 yrs have been carried out by people with British citizenship who would qualify to the highest (foreigners debarred) echelons of the RAF.

No 'nonsense' there.

Jawgap · 13-01-2017 10:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no doubt it is to do with 'economic and sociological reasons'. Armies capitalise on drawing the bulk of their numbers from those in the minus end of those categories.
They used to be referred to as 'cannon fodder'. Not an ambition of mine for myself or any child of mine tbh.

Yes, in early Victorian times they were, but the development of the rifle changed that, as did the Cardwell and Haldane reforms.....

......now if you enlist or join (the BA or the DF) progression is really dependent on yourself. Both operate an 'up or out' policy and there's any amount of courses, jobs, missions etc you can apply for.

If I had to critically compare both, I'd say the one thing that lets the DF down is that they don't offer enlisted personnel enough commissions, whereas in the BA is perfectly possible for someone to start as a ranker and end their career holding a field officer rank.

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments