Thank you, Captain Wales

HRH Prince Harry has recently commented on his difficulties about leaving behind his comrades. A very moving account - representative of what many in his situation experience.

Below is the link to my

LinkedIn article: Thank you, Captain Wales

Rules of Engagement: Spouses

I've been labouring over this for two weeks now - I'm into my second year of writing this blog; I am no more (and no less) "military wife" than I am soldier, and still I haven't mentioned them once:

                                                         spouses

Being the spouse of a serviceman (or a servicewoman) must be one of the toughest jobs going *) :

• You spend a lot of time on your own, when your partner is away on exercise or on deployment; even when he is back home, he might not actually be around much;
• You will be excluded from large parts of his life;
• Your partner misses out on a lot of important events: anniversaries; births; school start ... And you have to make up for it, cover up your own disappointment and "soldier on" - even organise second birthdays or anniversaries;
• You might be on your own when important decisions need to be made - you can't rely on your partner to be around to "quickly fix something";
• You have little choice when it comes to housing and where to live;
• You will be expected so socialise with other spouses with which you might have very little in common - other than the rank and regiment of your partners; and you will be competing alongside your partners competition for promotion;
• There will be a "third party" in your relationship: rules, expectations, standards and norms - a lot of them unwritten, and you might not even know that you have signed up for it;
• Your behaviour, the way you talk and dress will be under close scrutiny;
• Your conduct can, ultimately, impact on his chances for promotion;
• You give up on your career and aspirations, you become part of the "military family" - without much of the closeness and camaraderie your partner will experience;
• A lot of the time you will worry.

There are positives, obviously:

• You share the sense of commitment - of a "greater good". Yes, I've heard that many of you supposedly hate "the military". But, let's be honest, he's not away on a business trip selling cars or insurances.
• Even though you might have to move more often than you want and might not like the accommodation - at least you don't have to "house hunt".
• There's no denying ... he does look gorgeous in uniform.
• And, yes, you will move up the ranks with him.

Then, when your partner is around, you need to switch into a different mode

• You now need to include your partner, make him (her) feel part of the family, without overloading him.
• Your partner might need help to unwind, relax and "come home" - especially when he returns from deployment; these days, there are only 48 hours between the heat in the desert and the school run.
• No matter how long the break, or what happened while you were apart, you need to find a way to reconnect, and you need to help your children do the same.

What you cannot say is:

• "Thank God, you're finally back. I need ... I want ... you have to ... can we please now ...

The serviceman has dedicated his life to the military. As his spouse, you have dedicated your life to supporting him. (I imagine the wife of a vicar must feel the same. Or the wife of a policeman. And there will be others.) You will look after the children, socialise in a way that supports his career, give up on your own; you start living among other military wives - accidentally thrown together, far away from your family and old friends.

And then the question:
How are you?

He doesn't want to know about your fears, your frustrations, your struggles - because he will have to go away again at some stage and he will want to know that you're alright, that you can cope.
     The CO's wife might make the rounds - but she doesn't have time to listen to your worries - after all, she has experienced them herself and is also expected to "get on with it".
     The Family Liaison Officer might ask you how you are - but he is busy, it's not his main job and if you appear too needy, it reflects bad on your partner.

On the other hand, you will never really know how he is. "I'm fine now - glad to be back home." You accept that; what choice do you have? Just like a vicar's wife, you might have the reassurance that what you do is important, that it serves a higher purpose. You know that he depends on you. He needs you while he is away - the knowledge that he will come back home to you.

Should the unthinkable happen and he gets wounded, you will be brought in. You're not alone. You're part of the big military family - according to their rules. You still have to play a part.

You are a couple, a unit - and yet you are forever separated. His closest bond will not be with you - it will be with those whose lives depended on him and whom he trusts with his own life. We say "blood is thicker than water" - that's why we come up with ideas like "blood brothers" or "band of brothers". That is a bond you have to experience, be part of to understand it. There is something you will never share.

"He is always so kind, so calm. He wouldn't ever hurt anybody."
I am sorry, but you're fooling yourself. You don't know your partner in battle. He harms, he hurts, he lives a life you can't imagine. That is a side of him you will never get to see. He leaves it out there (unless something goes badly wrong).

Probably your number one rule of engagement is "you don't step outside". You are a pillar of support - but you do it quietly. You don't publicly complain about bad treatment or accommodation. You praise him for his achievements and stand proudly by his side. You don't comment in any detail on his failures - you bear his frustration and go on supporting you. You can bask in his glory - and you will fall with him. It's not your place to defend him, certainly not in public.

Whatever bothers you - at the end of the day, you swallow it and "get on with it". End of story.

It can be one of the toughest jobs going.

And if you have survived all this and are still a couple, then you are thrown into new turmoil when he leaves and has to adjust to life outside of the military.

Nobody has ever taught you how to become a military wife - and you are forgotten again in the transition into civilian life. He might have access to resettlement, to some form of support and training. But spouses?

Again, strangely enough, this is a topic we came across in the research project I coordinated ten years ago. So I've decided to call my next article "spouses in transition".


*) I will focus this article on the "serviceman" with a female partner. That relationship is complicated enough. It becomes even more of a challenge when the roles are reversed or follow less traditional patterns.

If he is a hero, she must be a saint

When I try to make sense of something, quite often I start off by writing a poem about it.

A (veteran) friend asked me the other day: "Why don't you write about spouses - about what happens to them during the transition?" So I wrote a poem and sent it to him. Nervously waiting to hear what he might think, the reply that came back was: "It sounds angry."

That made me think.

I have spoken to many Service leavers over the past few years: their hopes and fears; their disillusionment and disappointment; their struggles - and their successes. There has only ever been the odd glimpse of what it all means to their partners. A lot is expected of "military wives" and, somehow, most of them grow into it. There's no course they can take, no exam they sit. They just get on with it. After all, they know why they are making all those sacrifices. Or do they? Should they just be happy, grateful, cheerful when it comes to an end? Unlikely. Nobody has prepared them for it. It won't all be plain sailing - so, yes, why shouldn't they be a bit angry at times.

You're leaving the Forces

The life I thought we’d have is gone.
You didn’t ask for my advice,
when you decided to move on.
It’s me as well who pays the price!

Life happened at a hurried pace,
I’ve only ever seen you strong.
You are now in a different place,
but you don’t tell me what is wrong.

You were not ready yet to go,
now it is only you and me.
I’ve loved you long enough to know
you miss the camaraderie.

So please let’s talk, just you and me,
let’s make a start at a new dream.
We can both fight adversity,
just let me in, I’m now your team.

I have the utmost respect for every soldier, sailor, airman I have got to know over the past years. I have begun to feel extremely uncomfortable at the overuse of the term "hero" - they don't want to be called heroes anyway. It prevents us from dealing with them as simply fellow human beings - especially when they are leaving the Forces and start competing with us for jobs.

Now I think I have come to realise that their partners deserve just as much respect and admiration - and support. They aren't just "military wives" - they are the partners of men (or women) whose jobs were demanding, dangerous at times, and are now coming to a end. They have to master just as much reorientation. Therefore, I will dedicate the next two articles to them.

In the meantime, I leave you with a song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJMoPDUP_24
I can't remember how often I've heard it - now it leaves me deeply in thought as I'm about to go and see "The two world of Charlie F." again.

Our Servicemen (and women) aren't heroes. Their partners aren't saints. Both are doing tough jobs, both have my highest regard - both ought to be recognised for what they are.

How much do we owe our soldiers, sailors and airmen?

About a year ago, the then chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, Prof Alasdair Smith, was sacked after he had defied an order to limit pay rises for troops.

I fail to see how such an increase could have compensated for the additional pressure put on Forces families by redundancies and defence cuts - "deteriorations in the conditions of military life" as he put it - unless as an attempt to "boost morale" among those still in Service. The recommendations were:

• 1% increase in basic pay for soldiers, sailors, airmen
• 0.5% increase in the "X-factor".

The "X-factor" is a supplement to the standard wages, meant to reflect the hardships and uncertainties of life in the Forces. It increases overall pay to 14% more than a comparable civilian salary. There's also an additional daily allowance while on deployment ("away from base for more than 7 days").

Apparently, the pay rise would have cost a total of £40million - on an on-going basis, presumably. In a time of public sector pay freezes, as well as defence cuts, this wouldn't go down well. Sometimes there's a disadvantage in numbers.

On a side note:
At the time, (Jan 2013) Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was quoted stating  "We will have a smaller Armed Forces but they will in future be properly equipped and well funded, unlike before." - Well, The Royal Navy will be without a working aircraft carrier for years and the Desert Rats will lose their tanks.

At the same time, changes to state pension mean that Service personnel will have to pay higher National Insurance contributions - with a new Armed Forces pension scheme to be introduced in 2015.

But it doesn't end there.

There are numerous examples where service personnel affected by redundancy were given wrong information about the amount of their pay. Some opted for voluntary redundancy, based on misleading figures. Only later did it transpire that some of them had, for example, "gaps in their service" and their entitlement would be considerably less - many ended up in debt. In some cases, those affected might not have asked all the relevant questions. But how can they? They are used to being looked after, not to being suspicious. There is a responsibility on the part of the MoD to make sure those affected have all the relevant information before they are asked to make a decision.

Life in the Services is still not conducive to a thorough and systematic preparation for life in civvy street - especially if the individual plan was a lifetime career in the Forces!

The final tranche of redundancies have been announced. But the impact will be felt for years to come. Thousands are now still in the process of leaving. Veterans still face numerous prejudices in civilian life and when they approach civilian employers. I have written about how the Deputy Chief of the Defence staff talks about "transferable skills". Yes, of course I know all about it! But many civilians don't want to know. The media like to focus on PTSD and veterans in prison. And, again, there's the disadvantage in numbers - even organisations who have traditionally employed Service leavers wouldn't be able to cope with the demand now.

While many Service leavers will eventually make a successful transition - many won't. The CTP is a good idea, but in many cases it doesn't even scratch the surface.

The MoD hides behind the contract they've signed and washes their hands of anybody past the point of Service. But there's something they should worry about.

The research I was involved in all those years ago didn't only look at how redundancy impacts on those who are affected by it; we also looked at those who didn't have to leave - poignantly called "survivors of redundancy".

• They worry that there will be redundancies again in the future and that they might be hit;
• They lose trust in the organisation;
• Increased fear and loss of trust lead to reduced engagement - while some will "try even harder" to prove that they are worth their money. (Which, of course, will have no impact whatsoever on future redundancy selections.)
• People will stop calling in sick - putting themselves and others at risk.

Statistics can always be read in many ways - here's my excerpt from the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey 2013. (I don't have the complete tables, only the "key findings".)

• 28% of Service personnel are dissatisfied with Service life
• 29% rate their morale as "low"
• Only 28% feel valued in their Service
• 44% consider their workload as "too high"
• 61% have not taken all their annual leave (an increase compared to the previous year)

Pay and benefits, on the other hand, were of little concern! (It would appear it only comes into play during the search for employment outside the Forces.) Overall, in the 2013 survey, there was support for the ethos of being in the Service, people are proud to serve, consider the systems to be supportive and fair and give huge credit to their immediate superiors. But for how much longer?

It will be interesting to see the 2014 results.

Finally, let's have a look at what the British public thinks - bearing in mind that "the public" is where our future recruits are coming from:

• They think very favourably of the UK Armed Forces in general and of the three Services;
• They think that the UK needs strong Armed Forces, that they make a positive contribution to the UK and offer value for money to the tax payer.
• The public do NOT think that
  - the Armed Forces are well equipped,
  - have appropriate levels of pay and benefits;
• And the public are divided whether or not the Services look after their people.

Unfortunately, this positive image of the Forces in general does not seem to extend past the end of the Service. The Forces are only appreciated as long as they are a separate entity. Apparently, the current recruitment drives for the Reserve Forces are not overly successful. Does that surprise anybody?

In contrast, the public think very unfavourably of the Ministry of Defence - they do not offer value for money, don't support the troops enough and don't engage sufficiently with other stakeholders.

Only 4% of the public feel confident that they know what the Armed Forces Covenant is about.

Maybe not surprisingly, the autumn 2012 "engagement index" for MoD employees showed a decline in all areas of engagement - and those who responded don't generally expect that the report will be of any consequence.

Let's hope that Lord Ashcroft's Veterans Transition Review is.

Because we do owe our soldiers, sailors, airmen:

• appropriate pay;
• decent living conditions;
• support for their families;
• first-class training and equipment;
• preparation for the life post-Services - which will, inevitably, come one day;
• and ongoing support.

They should be able to be proud of having served - unreservedly - rather than try to hide it in their CVs.

This country needs a much greater awareness of what veterans can - and want to - contribute to civilian organisations (and to society in general). This is a joint responsibility - it shouldn't be left to the MoD alone. But the MoD could well take on a coordinating role, rather than leave it to thousands of "military charities" to pick up the pieces - all with their own overheads, quite a few of them currently under investigation.

It's not an issue of pay.
It's about respect and recognition.


Sources:
James Kirkup in The Telegraph online, 15/03/13, 10:09am (26/02/14)
James Kirkup in The Telegraph online, 22/01/13, 11:29am (26/02/14)
Steven Swinford in The Telegraph online, 25/01/13, 10:00pm (26/02/14)
Ministry of Defence (2012). Autumn 2012 Survey "Your engagement index"
Ministry of Defence (July 2013). Statistical Series 6 - Other Bulletin 6.03 - Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey 2013
MOD and Armed Forces Reputation Survey Spring 2012: Topline Findings March 2012
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20097.aspx (26/02/14)

What I understand about PTSD

I'd like to tell you a story about myself, for a change. Please bear with me - the relevance will become clear!

The other morning, I woke up having dreamt of my Dad. (He passed away in 1999 after a gruesome battle with cancer.) I told him politely but firmly that I don't want to argue with him again and that I'm not interested in his opinion.

Breathing deeply.

My Dad has always been an avid sportsman - no challenge was too much for him. He could never understand why I wasn't more like the son he would have wanted. My younger sister was much more of a tomboy. She could do all the things kids do long before I even attempted them. (I don't know what made me so shy and scared in the first place, but I just was.)

When my Dad got fed up with me not learning to swim - he resorted to throwing me into the water. I was too young to retain a very detailed memory. What I do know is that I went into a state of shock and nearly drowned. He rescued me, and the whole event won't have lasted longer than a few seconds. But it had a profound influence on my life ever since.

• I try to avoid anything to do with sudden contact with water, whether it is deep or shallow.
• I feel uneasy about heights.
• I loathe the feeling of slipping and losing the ground beneath my feet.
• I hate the idea that I could fall.
• Even just watching other people take risks leaves me anxious that something might happen.

Dreams of endless falling have, thankfully, long subsided. I'm no longer at school where I have to find excuses for not being willing to do what everybody else attempts. But it is still there.

And now it's beginning to change.
I'm not talking about some miracle cure. It has been a long process, and it's not concluded yet. I know, of course, that there are some major differences compared to what some of you have experienced:

• For those of you who have been diagnosed with PTSD or show some of the symptoms, the events which caused it will have been much more recent.
• Most of you will therefore remember much more detail - unless, of course, that memory is suppressed.
• And, it goes without saying, that unlike in my example, few people will be able to relate to what it is you have experienced. But they don't have to understand every little detail. It's a misconception that nobody understands because "they haven't been there".

Much more important are the communalities:

1. It is not your fault!
   Despite all the training and the preparation - you can't control the thunderstorm in your brain. We don't yet know why some people just shake events off and get on with life while others are deeply affected. And though we can speculate on the kinds of events that might lead to post-traumatic stress - we can't predict it. Nor can we prevent it.
2. You need to do something about it - or nothing will change!
   No matter how difficult it is, only you can spark the change. Therapists can help - but you are at the center of it.
   Rather than just focus on the trauma: Try something new; do something that you never thought you could do. Can't think of anything? How many of you have attempted to write a short story? Paint a portrait? Learn a foreign language? Have a go at acting? What's the thing you think you could never do? Then try it. You won't be the next Picasso or Michelangelo overnight - but there is so much satisfaction in achieving even part of something you wouldn't have thought possible.
   Trust me - it will give you confidence. And that confidence will carry on into other areas of your life. You need to find people you can trust, of course: a writers' club where everybody is working on a publication is probably not the best start. But a beginners class in an adult education college will be a very supportive and encouraging setting.
   If you find even such small steps too scary - then you ought to talk to someone about medication, at least temporarily.
3. Therapy - help - doesn't have to involve "going there again"
   There is no "one-size-fits-all", and some of you might be so deeply affected that you need therapy. There are loads of approaches out there, and even for a professional it can be a challenge to navigate through them.
   "Talking about it" seems to be something we would all intuitively recommend - but that's not the only option. Nor it it necessarily always the best. I've done an awful lot of "talking" and it has never changed anything. And if someone were to suggest to "take me back in time" and make me relive what happened, I would finally be able to sprint. Why would I want to re-experience what it feels like to nearly drown???
   If you don't have a GP or receive therapy via some other route, have a chat with the guys at www.ptsdresolution.org.
4. The road to discovery might involve some "trial and error"
   Whether it is a new hobby or therapy - your first attempt might not be successful. This can feel like a major setback, given that it might have cost you considerable effort to make that step in the first place. But, again, it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. It might just not have been a good match. A professional in that particular area should unterstand that and should be able to help you find an alternative.
   But don't give up. You can't run away from it anyway!
   Deep down, though maybe hidden away, you have all the skills necessary to get onto the road of recovery! I know that - and I believe in you.
5. You can get your life back on track!
   And you have to. You might have dependants - children, partners. But you also have your whole life still ahead of you. You have a responsibility to do something useful with it. The man (woman) you once were is still inside of you!

Ulitmately, nobody can do it for you.

What it was for me? Well ...

I joined a boot camp class - and, yes, you're allowed to laugh. Me - who doesn't have a record of avid exercise; in fact, I hated it as a child. Now I feel like I'm going crazy when I have to miss a class. I wouldn't dream of getting too dirty as a child - now I end up sweaty, dirty and smelling of wet soil ... and I love the way people look at me on my commute home. I love the way my muscles ache - muscles I didn't even know I had. My friends think I've gone completely barmy. Or, more precise: My civvy friends think I've gone mad; my ex-military friends smile in a slightly condescending way, sometimes mixed in with a "why would anybody do that voluntarily ...?". And, yes, there's the occasional "well done". But none of that is important. It's my journey.

Me being me, of course, it couldn't just be any "military-style fitness class". It had to be the "real thing" - short of joining up, obviously. (That's a whole different story ...) Why? Now this will make you smile as well ... Because I trust them. I trust the man who has worn a uniform. I admire and respect them. I trust them to know what they are doing. I will never get to what they are capable of. But it's an incredibly supportive environment. We all feel part of a team - no matter what our fitness levels. There is so much mutual encouragement. You get praise when it's due - and you're challenged when you don't try hard enough. And they have a genuine interest in people - it never feels as if they were just doing a job.

The culmination of this experience so far was a trip to an "obstacle course". OMG. There was an awful lot I didn't attempt and for a while I felt like quitting - but I didn't. I still remember the adrenalin rush which accompanied what I did master. It worked, because I knew there were two Marines I could rely on. I knew I would be in safe hands. I wasn't pressured. And I wasn't petrified either, I even enjoyed it - continuing to run in soaking wet clothes to try and keep warm (having waded through a small river), shoes that suddenly feel so much heavier, the mud splashing up and always at the verge of slipping. And, yes, I do want to do it again and see if I can push myself a little bit further.

I will never be the one to jump off a cliff into the sea. But I would like to have a go at abseiling within the next 5 to 10 years.


What's your challenge?

It doesn't matter what it is,
as long as it takes you out of
your comfort zone!

Make one tiny step today - and keep going!



If you want to share your story but don't want to create a Gmail account - email me: sabine.pitcher@mail.com - and I'll add it.

Let's talk about transition - YOUR transition!

I have teamed up with a professional photographer (www.dominicharris.co.uk) and I have interest from a publishing house (www.cwpg.com) to help make this work.

I am now looking for volunteers who are happy to talk to me about their transition out of the Forces:

• You might have left a long time ago, settled in a new job - or not;
• You might be in the process of leaving, not knowing how to "sell" yourself;
• You might have an injury or disability and aren't sure how a potential employer will react;
• Your transition might have been successful, but you remember all too well what made you struggle.

Whatever your story is - I would like to hear it. I will try to sum it up in a few key sentences - I know it won't do it justice. But my aim is to get the message across to others.

I want to have your photos taken because people remember pictures better than words.

The collection of stories and faces will then - that's the plan - be sent to HR professionals in organisations which have not yet signed up to the Covenant. With a bit of luck, this could help you directly. But it will also help spread the word about what people like you can contribute and how we can all help Service leavers make the transition.

If you cannot connect with me via Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn - then please email me:
sabine.pitcher@mail.com.

It's not just me then ... "Bring in the Military!"

I read a lovely quote in the paper - in a not-so-lovely article about flood victims. 30,000 acres of country are submerged; many claim that this is, ultimately, a man made problem since the Environment Agency stopped dredging the rivers and even flogged off the machinery 20 years ago.

Here's what one of the residents said:

     "I'd have greater faith in the Environment Agency
      if there  was a brigadier in charge of it."

The man refers to Brigadier Alex Birtwistle and the Army intervention during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease. At the time, local farmers held protest meetings, calling the Ministry of Agriculture incompetent. (The brigadier had postponed his retirement for the army intervention.)

Soldiers worked continuously "collating intelligence, giving slaughtermen weapons training, and working out how to shower down vets fast enough to keep the diagnoses ticking over". Most had served in Bosnia, Sierra Leone or the Gulf. Now they became known in the farming community for their clipped vowels and organisational skills.  

And I don't think I need to mention the 2012 Olympic Games. Many of the soldiers who supported the games had just returned from deployment and should have gone on leave. For many of them, accommodation was improvised - in comparison, Camp Bastion offered a life of luxury and here they were in the middle of London. And, yet, they saved the games and made them an unforgettable experience.

How much more evidence does this country need? There are now thousands of military personnel being made redundant - they are highly skilled, they know how to adjust and to adapt and to get a job done.

So I have finally started a little project to help promote the idea - ultimately, to promote (ex-) military personnel and their skills.

Please go to my next blog - "Let's talk about transition" - maybe you would like to contribute as well?

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/30/footandmouth.angeliquechrisafis
Daily Mail 29/01/2014 p. 6

Can we really have equality?

Maybe I just haven’t understood the concept of equality.

I can’t believe that it’s been over a year (September 2012, to be precise) since this story made me angry:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9554528/British-soldier-gives-birth-in-Camp-Bastion.html

Yes, it does happen that a woman is unaware of being pregnant. This soldier was “said to have passed fitness tests and training, including an eight-mile run with a 25lb backpack”. You’re tested for drugs and for AIDS and I don’t know what else. But it says in the article that “Forces can’t insist on pregnancy tests.” Why ever not? Because it would be discriminatory – as it only affects women? Such stupidity. They’d rather put a mother and her baby at risk than acknowledge that there are differences that have to be dealt with rather than ignored. A pregnant woman doesn’t belong on the frontline.

They flew out specialist medical staff, and later flew the baby to its Grandma – all at the taxpayer’s expense – so that the mother could return to duty. I’m sure it will have made a welcome change for the medical teams – but, imagine, there had been complications. (Do they have incubators in Camp Bastion?) Or a fight, or an explosion somewhere and not all medics available …

It then went all quiet in the media.

Fast forward to November 2013:

You will all have heard of the three female RAF reservists who have been awarded compensation for allegedly having been made to extend the length of their strides beyond what is recommended for women. (I'm not addressing here the issue of whether or not guidelines weren't adhered to and why those women have left it so long to complain - that will be the topic of another article.)

Is it not maybe time to acknowledge that we can’t have equality? (I’m obviously not an HR person.)

Physiologically, men and women are different. On average (statistically), women can’t build as much muscle mass as men. Constant over-striding can, indeed, damage hip ligaments in women. The Military (maybe I should say the MoD), has taken this into account when they introduced separate guidelines – and the below are just a couple of examples I could easily get hold of:

• The length of stride for women is 28”, for men it is 30”. (Following the above compensation ruling, the RAF have now reduced the guidelines for women to 27”.)
• During the Army Officer fitness tests, women are expected to perform 21 press-ups in two minutes, men 44.

Now, one could argue that the test merely does what it says on the tin – assessing a person’s fitness. So what? And does the length of stride matter – unless you’re on the parade ground? You’re hardly “marching” on patrol. I have closely watched a few military bands marching and have honestly wondered why there  doesn't  seem to be a minimum body height. The women among them can only have been over-striding – otherwise they would fall behind. (And one rather short veteran reported how he was regularly “running” more than "marching” because otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to keep up. And a few tall guys have struggled with shortening their length of stride below what was comfortable for them. So this isn't just an issue "men vs. women".)

On a practical level: How is a parade going to work with potentially three different stride lengths?

Someone once told me that everybody in the Armed Forces needs to maintain a high level of fitness as they all have to be deployable at short notice, should the need arise. (Yes, in practice, some might lack behind …) Everybody needs to be able to fire a gun, if necessary, and therefore perform to certain minimum standard. Everybody needs to be able to run, carry heavy loads and duck for cover – without months of preparation once you’re past initial training.

Am I wrong - is this “merely” an HR issue?

Should we not simply acknowledge that we’re all different and employ every individual according to their strengths (and weaknesses)? I’m sure that there are plenty of situations when you’ve made such decisions anyway. You will have chosen the tallest or the shortest or the fastest … the calmest or the most alert … and there’s huge benefit in us all being different.

But the Military isn’t a working environment like any other. If you’ve lost your best man / woman, then everybody else needs to step in. Specialism aside - whoever is the “last man standing”, needs to be able to do what needs doing – load a shell, carry a comrade … And whatever these tasks are that everybody has to be able to perform needs to be reflected in assessments and standards.

I once asked a medically discharged veteran why not more wounded are being retained – for example, in education and training, in selection, in training development. Surely their experience must be very valuable. He didn’t know the answer. Is this a about fitness standards?

Or is this about our “image” of what a soldier (sailor / airman) should be like?

 

I once saw on television a PE instructor of the US Army with only one hand. He couldn’t have done all the exercises he was assessing, but nobody would have doubted that he’s the right man for the job. Are we struggling to take equality (difference) seriously because of some ancient image of a “man in uniform”? (Women still aren’t eligible for every role in the Forces – that they can't serve on submarines is not due to physiological differences, not to mention the fact that they are exempt from frontline combat.)

 

So, by definition, we don’t have equality anyway. What we have is a mess of not dealing properly with difference.

And then I made the mistake to go on the website of the German Army. They don’t publish all their assessment criteria, but I found something else: They have different categories of fitness for service. For example, you can join but forever be exempt from riding on a tank if you have back problems.^*) (I also know of a British soldier who – after he had developed a condition - was allowed to deploy but couldn’t go on patrol. Apart from the associated management and planning issues – it’s highly demoralising. You’re still part – and yet you’re not.)

And a fairly recent change to the law in Germany means that anybody who gets injured in service – no matter how long he (or she) would have been serving - is entitled to lifelong employment with the Bundeswehr. (See my yesterday’s post.)

Now, for the foreseeable future, the German Forces won’t enter into open combat^**) – they provide medical teams and help during the reconstruction. But the UK Military is constantly deploying somewhere – and they are shrinking. How much flexibility can they afford? Conversely, how “equal” do our soldiers need to be?

And one final thought:

I remember having read something about the Israeli Army years ago – they were among the first to recruit women. And they seem to have come to regret it. “Women and children first” seems to be a natural instinct and there is evidence that is has led to men (male soldiers) risk their lives and go against orders in attempts to protect female comrades.

My answer remains:

I don’t think we can have equality – not in society; certainly not in the Military.

So – rather than pretend it was otherwise:

• How much difference can be allowed, and how can we find a better way to deal with differences?
• How can standards be set – adhered to and reviewed – that reflect the requirements of the job (and not answer to political agendas)?

And, finally:

• Should exceptions be made? And for whom?

Your answers?

 

 

^*) This is from an unofficial website not hosted by the Bundeswehr - http://www.bundiswehr.de/

^**) Unless by accident – as happened to the soldier described in my yesterday’s post.

The same plight the world over - Germany

When German soldiers deployed to Kosovo, they expected to provide humanitarian aid - not to be involved in any form of combat. However, Kosovo and Somalia - and, of course, Afghanistan - presented them with situations for which they were not prepared. In 2012, the Bundeswehr counted 1,143 cases of PTSB, 194 added that year. This is only gradually reaching the public.

A self-help group / charitable organisation ("Bund Deutscher Veteranen") founded in 2010 has succeeded in having regulations changed a year later:

     Every serviceman and woman who has been wounded or suffered mental health issues since 1992
     has the right to remain in service, if it has been established that the injury was service related.

     They can remain in service for life, even if they did not join as professional soldiers.

One case was published (Der Spiegel online, 7 Oct 2013) of a soldier who is basically unfit for work, has daily (!) therapy and regularly loses his temper. It took several years until his condition was accepted as being service related - years of uncertainty for him and his family. He now works on a base near his home, but his commanding officer does not know what to do with him, nor do his colleagues. He won't go near weapons any longer.

The Bundeswehr now plans to introduce pre-deployment screening to rule out any psychological issues which could increase the risk of developing PTSD. According to one study, 1 out of 5 German soldiers who are deployed has a pre-existing medical condition (Sueddeutsche Zeitung online, 26 Nov 2013).

Like the UK Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr is going through a reform - at the heart of it is the reduction of the number of troops and the closure and reduction of bases. An increasing number of soldiers serve far from home. Troops feel uninformed and left alone with their worries - the number of formal complaints has reached its highest level since the foundation of the Bundeswehr in 1959 (N24 online, 29 Dec 2013).

All eyes are now on Ursula von der Leyen, the new German Defence Minister - her rhetoric, so far, has impressed soldiers in Germany (N21 online, 4 Jan 2014).

Well, the one thing that's changing is that soldiers and their issues are making it into the media in Germany, there are support groups and gradually increasing support from the public. The debate in the UK has been going on for a while - but how much further have we really got?

And why can't we seem to get to grips with PTSD?

Don't punish the families

So now all three Marines have been named. Maybe somebody will come up with something to do with "public interest". Well, I'm a member of the public, and it is not in my interest.

Marine A has made a mistake. A grave mistake. And he's now paying for it. So is his family - inevitably - even without his name being dragged through the media. His family, his children, his friends, they are all deeply affected. What good is being served by naming him? And now the two others who weren't even found guilty? This is not fair. It is not just. It is simply wrong.

Let me tell you a little story:

My grandfather was, as far as I know, not a particularly nice man. He could be volatile. He worked as a prison warden in the concentration camp in Dachau. He was probably a member of the Nazi party. (All the records were lost in the war.) His family will have lived as comfortably as was possible in wartime Germany in the 1940s. Until one day he was shot in the back and killed - supposedly by his own men. The story goes that he had seen something with which he didn't agree. Whatever happened, overnight my grandmother had become a persona-non-grata. The widow of a traitor. With two young children, one still a baby, she was suddenly on her own.
     Fast forward two years and the war comes to an end. What do you think happened next? There was no mercy for the widow of a Nazi. She couldn't win. It took years for the Allied Forces to sift through all the documents and establish that she had done nothing wrong. Meanwhile she an her children had to live off left-over potatoes in the fields. I have a photo of her in those days - she looked awful. Hardly a trace left of the elegant and confident woman she once was.

No, the story isn't over yet.

I didn't know any of this until I was in my mid 20s. A distant relative mentioned it. All through my school years, I would have said what all my class mates said: 'My Granddad died in the war.' Assuming that this was on the battlefield. What my Grandma had gone through had left such a profound impact that it was never mentioned again. Now, suddenly, I was the granddaughter of a Nazi. And I have felt the "mark of Cain" upon me ever since.

Yes, Colonel Collins, I know what it means that one's deeds follow us down through history.

Today's situation is, of course, very different. But there is one common consequence: "Know it is your family who will suffer ..." - Marine A tragically forgot that. But we have no right to make matters even worse - for people who are innocent. Marine A is not a common criminal. He was serving his country. His family deserves protection. And I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody in the "justice" system could think differently.

Rules of Engagement - open letter to Colonel Tim Collins

Dear Colonel Collins,

I am writing to you in response to your commentary in the Daily Mail on Armistice Day. Before I do so, I would like to emphasise that I have the highest regard for you - for you as a man, and for what you stand for. This is about a difference in opinion. I would also like to point out that I am fully aware that I owe it to men like you than I can have a blog and express my opinion freely - without fear of repercussions. I am making use of this right for which so many lives have been sacrificed.

A lot has been said and written this week about "Marine A" - too much, one might say. You are very critical of the "PC brigade, to whom the very existence of the British Army seems to be an affront". And you ask for mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration. Though I think I agree with your conclusion, I would like to point out a few dangers in your line of argument.

Firstly, though I am a civilian, I am by no means "blissfully ignorant of the horrendous realities of combat". Strangely enough, when I first heard of the case of Marine A (and the others), my immediate thoughts were: 'Of course, it is impossible for me to fully grasp what these men have gone through.' And, naturally, I was happy to accept a whole range of possible excuses. Little was I prepared for what happened next.

I have spent the last three years talking to men (and a few women) who are in their process of leaving the Armed Forces, and to an increasing number of veterans. Some of them have become very dear friends. Naturally, the topic came up in conversation. One said "I think, we need to talk!". One or two nearly jumped at me - a figure of speech. They were very angry with me at the suggestion that Marine A shouldn't face the full consequences of his actions.

These friends have all been in command during combat - or in conflict. They have seen action in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and some of the places in Africa which seem to have been all but forgotten. No, I don't know the details of what they encountered. But they explained to me in no uncertain terms that never, under no circumstances, must a soldier threaten or kill an adversary who no longer poses a danger. There are no exceptions.

Marine A knew that he was in the wrong - he rejected the idea of first aid; he made sure no senior officer was around; he dragged the prisoner out of sight; and he gave orders to remain quiet. This was not a spontaneous action - like not having heard the call for cease fire. This was a deliberate action. Some of those friends of mine went as far as to say that the men who were with Marine A would have had a duty to stop him.

It is me, the civilian, who didn't understand this at first. But Marine A is a senior NCO in an elite unit - he failed his profession. He failed all those who were in similar situations and who did the right thing. I have read your speech. (I have also read your book.) Those friends of mine can quote from your speech even today!

It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

We will never know how many will have felt the temptation to pull the trigger. And who is to blame them - after they have scraped body parts off the streets in Northern Ireland; after they've seen comrades mutilated by IEDs. But they withstood. I know of no soldier who enjoys the act of killing. Occasionally - and within the narrow constraints of the rules of engagement - it is a necessity. Like all the others, Marine A will have had those ruled read out to him time and time again. He will even have reminded others of those rules. There can be no exception.

Our soldiers (airmen, sailors, and the women, of course!) don't deserve our respect because they go out and shoot people. Not even because they get shot at - that is an occupational hazard (as they tell me). And, yes, of course we owe them the best of equipment, training and support! But they well and truly deserve our respect because, despite all of this, they uphold the principles of civilisation! We cannot allow them to become like the forces they are fighting.

Yes, there might be mitigating circumstances; maybe Marine A will be released early on parole. I wish this had never been dragged into the media the way it has. I know that the Marines are looking after him and his family - who are badly affected by the incident, made even worse by all the media attention.

No, maybe we cannot always trust our judges to make the right decisions. Then there are appeal processes. Those are the systems in place in this country. People make mistakes - that is only human. But they have to own up - especially when the mistake has cost a life. I am worried to read your casual statement - regarding the accusation you had to face yourself - that "yes, he did suffer a small cut to his head" (though "no one died"). This seems to imply that you did, indeed, cross the boundary. Whether or not this interpretation is intended, it has no bearing on the current case. Every suspected breech of the rules needs to be investigated. I read your book; what you had to go through all those years ago must have been a terrible experience. But this is not about setting an example - this is about taking those rules seriously, rules which, in many cases, distinguish us from our opponents.

I am painfully aware that I can lead a relatively ignorant life thanks to men like you. You go out, you see and do horrible things, so that I can live in peace. I also understand enough to know that the atrocities you are confronted with will often leave a mark. We need processes in place to intervene before this leads to a breech of the rules of engagement. Those rules have not been written by civilians. Yes, they might be the result of the work of desk jockeys. But they are your rules. Those friends of mine who I hold dearly and respect would not hesitate to defend those rules. Not just because they are rules. But because they believe in them.

One of them used to say "as long as there's life, there is hope" - when I tried to make a case for "a fate worse than death". But it is he who knows what he's talking about - what ending a life is all about; while for me it is an intellectual exercise. He did what was necessary, and I think he is still paying the price, without complaints. He has just said to me: "What would have happened had Marine A instead done everything in his power to try and save that man's life - captured on camera? Imagine the message that would have sent out." We will never know the answer.

Instead, we are now going down a very dangerous path. A court in America has ruled that a soldier has become a threat to society because of his service in Iraq. This soldier had asked for help and wasn't listened to. Our soldiers are no threat! By far the majority come back and reintegrate into civilian society. In fact, they are among the most peaceful people I know because they are trained in restraint as much as in fighting. And they understand the value of life. At the moment, the public debate seems to indicate that because we send soldiers into combat, we need to be prepared for fallout. (There's less agreement whether this would be in the form of PTSD or anti-social behaviour.) I would have happily signed up to that not so long ago. But now my friends would turn round and rightly ask "have you learned nothing from us?"

Let us leave it to the court now and the due processes. Let us focus on ensuring that our soldiers are adequately equipped, and that those who cannot cope with what they have to deal with get the right help and get it quickly. I pray that whichever soldier finds him- or herself next in a similar situation will make the right decision.

And I hope that we can engage with each other in a way that is rational, and that shows respect and compassion. Let's not think of our servicemen and women as either villains or heroes. Because that's not how they think of themselves. They do a job; and they do it well - often under difficult circumstances. When they come back, let's accept them for what they are. We are all part of the same society, and we can learn from each other. Men like you have an important role to play if the Covenant is to become reality. The public debate should not be about Marine A - this is about all our (present and past) servicemen and women.

Very sincerely yours

Why this country doesn't like its soldiers

This is not something I've come up with - it's what a friend has been trying to explain to me. But suddenly a few observations are beginning to make sense.

With a few exceptions, wars haven't actually been fought on this soil. Soldiers are sent away to fight. That means that this country has never experienced the feeling of welcoming soldiers as liberators - witnessing their sacrifices first-hand. I'm not suggesting that Germans welcomed the Allied Forces - but in the post-war period, they were greatly appreciated. And the liberation of France was a huge celebration.

But, in this country, something strange is happening:

Soldiers (please read "men and women serving") don't seem to be normal human beings. They are either monsters (child killers and constantly on the verge of a pub fight) or they are turned into victims. While homelessness among veterans and PTSD are real problems and some who are affected are still not getting enough help - not every soldier will develop a mental health problem. About a quarter of them might - which is the same figure quoted for the general population.

And if it isn't the negative image nor the mental health threat - then they are still viewed as different. I have witnessed it many a time when a service leaver applies for a job: they are rejected with very strange arguments. The problem is, no two applicants are the same and almost any choice can be justified. Fact is that people seem to be wary. All the positive characteristics of which ex-Forces people dispose seem to create a disadvantage - what if they actually get the job done? Get it done more efficiently? They fit into no box; they just come along and perform, without making a fuss about it - because that's what they are used to.

Somehow this isn't appreciated. Collectively, we have to insist that they are different. We call them heroes, we pity them, we donate to charities, we might even sign a petition. But "shoulder to shoulder" we stand not.

Yes, I struggle with the idea of them being "equals". Quite regularly, I walk across, shake hands and say "thank you". And I'm struck when one of them thanks me. We are in this together. They are part of us - thousands and thousands now being made redundant. They don't want to be called heroes or be pitied - they just want to be part. And they have a lot to give.

But each generation tells me how they were not welcome.

I started this blog almost a year ago. I have learned a great deal - and I have made a lot of friends among those who have served. They never hesitated doing what is necessary for us - now it's our turn! (And I won't tire making the case any time soon.)

Don't employ a veteran - he could suffer from PTSD

Why is it that, at the moment, whenever our troops are mentioned, it is in the context of PTSD - even in a recent BBC special about Northern Ireland.

Don't get me wrong - PTSD exists. It's real. Research might even have been able to link it so specific patterns in brain activity that are out of balance. We send our troops to some pretty nasty places and, despite the best of preparation, sometimes situations occur with which some of them can't cope. The same goes for our police force, ambulance staff, firefighters. Most of the time, our troops are not in combat - and life in the barracks can actually be pretty boring.

Yes, they deserve our respect and our understanding. It is hard to believe that there are still veterans who, after decades of suffering, have not been given a diagnosis. And those who have are quite often prescribed a whole cocktail of medication which is disabling in itself. But there is a dangerous downside to the current media coverage: it adds to a negative stereotype. First they were just uneducated, violent and potential addicts; now they are ill and need looking after. What they are not is normal human beings, like you and I.

Statistically, one in four troops returning from combat zones will develop symptoms of PTSD.
Also statistically, one in four in the general population will develop mental health symptoms at some stage in their lives.

I have seen the stage play "The Two Worlds of Charlie F.". And I have also just seen the film adaptation of "Sunshine over Leath".  The first was mesmerizing, extraordinarily well acted. (By that I mean that it was what I expected after all the many conversations I have had with people who had come extremely close to similar events. Obviously, I have never seen anything like it myself.) The latter was actually much more useful - two young soldiers who had just left the Army. They were struggling with life - but a lot of that was actually independent of their time in the Army.

They are among us. And most of them are actually pretty normal. Yes, they sometimes struggle - but for different reasons. They might not understand the hidden rules in civilian organisations. They might expect actions to be carried out. They will be irritated if after three meetings it is still not clear what ought to be achieved. But they can adjust. Having been made redundant might actually prove a much bigger trauma than a few months in a "hostile environment".

What they struggle with the most is our stereotypes and prejudices! Headlines like "Homecoming Horrors" in today's Shortlist certainly don't help.

A Military leader is compassionate

Forget about stereotypes like someone who's just shouting or ordering people around. (That's a dedicated task - not a leadership characteristic.) Forget also any idea of people being continually forced into top performance, beyond what they can bear.

As I continue my journey through Serve to Lead, this is what I found today:

A few officers seem to possess an almost instinctive ability to find out the strengths and weaknesses of their men; but most of them must approach the task consciously and deliberately [...].
As a leader gains knowledge of his men he will always find out things about certain ones in the course of normal observation and  without any prying on his part, that will in no way seem to him admirable - in fact, things that will often seem the opposite. These will, of course, be the ordinary weaknesses of humankind which any leader must freely acknowledge to exist, must look upon with reasonable tolerance, and must never permit himself to judge narrowly and harshly. If he does misjudge such traits he will find himself building up prejudices against individual subordinates who may well  have the stuff within them that it takes to carry out their mission.
(Colonel Munson)

I had the pleasure of experiencing such a leader once. It wasn't without challenge - but it always felt fair, and I intuitively knew I could trust him. He took his time getting to know people and forming an opinion on them; and I learned a great deal from him.

I ask you: Would we not all want more of these people as leaders and managers in any organisation?
They might not all have been born to lead; but they have all developed these skills. They had  to.

The British Soldier - kindness and gentleness

It will sound a bit out of date - but I liked this so much, I had to share this. I have been teaching tonight, and it was all about the bad things we are all capable of doing, given the right - or wrong - circumstances. And here I am, browsing through a copy of Serve to Lead that has been lent to me.

This is what I found:

It might well be that by new methods of scientific destruction, the whole nature of armies may be changed. Infantry and Cavalry may vanish away and regiments and even armies in the old and honoured sense may cease to be. Then shall the British Army likewise perish and its place shall know it no more. It mattes not. Were the Army to be swept tomorrow into nothingness, it has already done enough to give it rank with the legions of ancient Rome. And it will be remembered best not for its surpassing valour and endurance, not for its countless deeds of daring and its invincible stubbornness in battle, but for its lenience in conquest and its gentleness in domination.
(Sir John Fortescue)

Everything must be read in context; and I'm sure some readers will find a flaw that has escaped my attention. Obviously, I disagree with the sentiment that it doesn't matter if the Army shrinks further or even disappears. Strategical and tactical considerations aside - it feels like a betrayal of all the great men (and women) who have upheld those principles. However, they are still among us - all those who have been made redundant and who can be so valuable to civilian organisations.

One of them recently said to me "but we're nothing special" - oh yes, you are!

George Osborne's "Help to Work" scheme

As a German, I should have a lot of sympathy for tougher control on benefit expenditure. And I do. In principle. But "fairness" is not the same as trying to treat everybody the same.

The Telegraph announced today with reference to George Osborne's plans:

Welfare claimants will have to "work for the dole" by ... picking up litter ... And, quoting George Osborne's speech: "we are saying we are going to help you get into work, but we're going to ask for something in return".

The new policy seems to ignore completely why some people have been unemployed for a long time (apparently we're talking of between 60,000 and 200,000) - why they are "not employable". Already, the frighteningly high percentage of veterans among the homeless in London doesn't seem to generate more than shrugging shoulders. Where is the Covenant???

Service leavers face many prejudices - forget about all the praise (team work, reliability). Supposedly, they can't think for themselves and are inflexible. And a potential liability - a mental breakdown waiting to happen. That is complete nonsense, of course. What isn't nonsense is that they have long fulfilled their duty to this country and shouldn't be punished further. They would love to "do something in return" - that's inherent in the work they have been doing! We owe them - not the other way round.

But picking up litter???

Some of them will have had to pick up a lot worse - collecting body parts after explosions; cleaning vehicles after an injured comrade had been taken away. They might actually do the job properly. But cleaning up after people who litter the streets just because they couldn't care less - that is outrageous.

Instead - if they struggle to find or keep work, if they have trouble integrating, offer them the support they need and deserve. Get civilian employers to engage with them. Help them become part of civvie street - not clean it!



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10343237/George-Osborne-says-that-welfare-claimants-will-have-to-work-for-their-dole-money.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10342872/Conservative-Party-Conference-2013-day-two-as-it-happened.html

The perfect CV

The headline might have caught your interest - so let me get one thing straight to begin with:

 

The one perfect CV doesn't exist.

Now that that's out of the way, let's make a start.

There are two aspects to be distinguished - content and structure.

To get the CONTENT right:

• Make a list of ALL the things you've ever done - and I mean everything. If you haven't done this before, make sure you have one file somewhere that contains ALL your roles, responsibilities, achievements (not just what you think might be relevant for a particular job which you want to apply for right now):
  
  people or budgets you have been responsible for / savings you have achieved / teams you have led and where they were successful / projects you have contributed to ...
• Try to get a mix of things where you can identify your own contribution as a member of a team and things you initiated or led; don't worry too much if you don't have much of the latter:
  
  be honest with what you write down, don't make things up. You will get caught out otherwise.
• Over time, you will add to this document as you take on new roles or tasks and, yes, as you remember things you had previously forgotten.

Now look at the role description of the post you're applying for. Or, if you haven't yet reached that stage, try to find descriptions of roles you might be interested in.

Then comes the tedious job of going through the requirements one by one and picking from your comprehensive list those aspects which will illustrate that you are a good match for this particular job.

At this stage, you should give your CV to somebody to read it - to check if you have addressed everything, if you come over interesting enough and - very important - to make sure that the language can be understood.

A simple example:
"2IC" is really bad - "2nd in Command" is marginally better - "deputy to ..." is what you should write.

Do NOT try to disguise that a substantial part (or all of) your experience was gained in the Military. It will become apparent anyway. Most civilian employers will not be able to navigate through ranks and regiments - but you should still be slightly more precise than just state "HM Forces".

A CV always needs to be tailored to a specific role. You cannot use one CV for a variety of applications. Even if you do not respond to a vacancy - tailor it to the organisation / department / role you are interested in. And, if at all possible, talk this through with somebody.

The structure of your CV:

There are numerous templates available online - if you only have a cursory look, you will pick up the basics.

Here's what's really important:

• At the top is your name and contact details (unless - and it happens - you are asked to submit a CV without those!) Neatly centered.
• Check that your email address and mobile phone number are correct. And make sure your email address looks professional - what might appear funny in a personal context is generally NOT appropriate for a CV.
• Do NOT list the abbreviations of all your various qualifications after your name! (Limit yourself to anything which is a requirement or personally important to you. For my part, I sometimes keep the "PhD" - sometimes I don't point it out.)
• Do NOT add a header "curriculum vitae" or CV - the reader knows what's in front of him or her.
• Your profile:
  Keep it concise. Four or five lines ought to be enough. Don't overuse the same words everybody else uses - "highly motivated" - "extremely committed" - that's a given and will be expected anyway. "Energetic" could mean anything. Choose adjectives that describe you - don't write what you think the other person will want to read.
• And don't say "now looking for a career in security or engineering". Maybe it's a poor example - but you need to make up your mind. Otherwise you'll come over as someone who doesn't know what he or she wants.

What then follows is a reverse chronological list of your roles and responsibilities to date. Pick and choose from the list I've suggested above - make sure it fits the role you're applying for as closely as possible.

Before you tire of reading - I'll put together an example and add it to a separate post in this blog.

The second section is your education. But please consider:

• If you are in your 40s when you write your CV - there's no need to list your GCSEs.
• If you have only recently gained a numeracy and / or literacy qualification: well done!!! - But don't mention that unless it is a specific requirement of the job.
• Don't list all the training you've ever done. It might be tough, but limit yourself to what is or might be relevant. (First aid training might not be a requirement but is always useful.)

At the end - any interests which can include voluntary work. You will all have interests - but if all you can think of is travelling, going out and meeting people - don't say it.

Don't try to squeeze it all onto one page - and don't make it worse by resorting to a font size for which the average reader will need a magnifying glass. Up to three pages are generally accepted for a professional CV. But don't waste space either - it will become clearer in the example I'm preparing.

Finally - proof read!!! Then proof read again. (And should you find a typo in this post - I'll buy you a drink when you come through London!)

Watch this space for an example - now scrol back up and get going. It really is easy - just time consuming.

 

Troops to Teachers - killers in the classroom?

I think I might gradually becoming angry ... and I would like to apologize if it appears as if I'm not considering the full context of the blog I'm referring to - I can't repeat it all. And it is in the nature of quotations that they are, on occasion, out of context.

Mr Northice kindly insists that:
My view of the military’s purpose, and the violence therein, is one of its broader political — and historical — role, not that of individuals’ motivation for enlisting.

Not an indivitual's motivation for enlisting - thank you very much - but that doesn't stop him from saying:
the Armed Forces are about using violence, force, aggression and/ or coercion to maintain the dominance of a nationalist narrative within a country’s domestic and foreign policy, and the experiences of its citizens’ cultural life.

Yes, again he claims to be referring to the wider political context - but he's just hiding behind this statement.

Mr Northice, why do you dislike the Military so much? You make attempts to convince your audience that you distinguish between "the Military" and people serving in the Armed Forces. But, really, you don't. (And I wonder what made you choose "from the frontline" as the header for your own blog.) You also don't seem to know it very well:
Teaching also needs, desperately, to be more representative of the cultural makeup of the UK. [...] As mentioned, those in the Armed Forces represent something of a specific political position, albeit through somewhat more diverse individual opinions and a slowly improving intake-demographic.

I just so happen to be currently reading a book by Tim Collins - "Rules of Engagement". He writes there about the 1st Batallion the Royal Irish Regiment - going back as far as 2001(!):
"A total of nineteen nationalities served within our ranks. [...] Prejudice of any sort was unforgiveable." (p.26)

Narrowing the gap between the strongest and the weakest is also part of Military ethics - nobody is being left behind. My friend has tried to describe this as well [http://dastdg.wordpress.com/troopstoteachers/]. But you are as committed to your opinion as I am to mine.

Now I would like to go back, once more, to the issue of violence which seems to be underlying so much of what Mr. Northice writes.

I have a friend - a very dear friend - whose experience will, by no means, be unique. I don't know much about his time in the army, because that's not something he generally talks about. If he does, then he'll talk about some funny aspects - the kind of stories soldiers tell who have seen a fair bit of the world. (And I really wish Prince Harry - Captain Wales - had not told the world of his own achievements ... But that is a whole different issue about which I have written elsewhere.)

However, I do know that this dear friend of mine was involved in people getting killed - whether due to orders he gave, or by his own hand. I don't really care. I know that he didn't enjoy it; that he probably wishes he didn't have to do it; but that he accepted - and still accepts - it as part of his job. (Until mankind has learned to live peacefully, we will probably have armed forces somewhere on the planet.)
 
You know, Mr. Northice: This very experience has made him one of the most peaceful people I know. He doesn't like conflict; he prefers not to have arguments (which, in conversation with me, can be a bit of a challenge). He is incredibly supportive of the people around him - even if it is to his own disadvantage. He wants the best for other people. And he knows an awful lot about motivating people and about team work.

I would trust him with children or vulnerable people any time. In fact, I would trust him with my own life without a moment's hesitation. And I would have no problem whatsoever if he stood any chance at all of being "fast tracked" - which he doesn't, because he left the army long before any such projects came into existence.

Mr. Northice, you accuse me of misinterpretations; of making assumptions. Regarding the latter - guilty as charged. I will make assumptions about men (and women!) who have served. Misinterpretations? This is not an exchange about facts. There are no "scientific" facts on which we could base this exchange. This is a debate based on fundamental differences in the beliefs we hold. Strangely enough - not differences in what we believe good education is.

I am not saying and will never say that every person with a military background will per se make a good teacher or role model. I do believe, however, that I will find a good many in that group - and they will have to go through a selection process and through training before they can teach. this nation's children.

Lastly - I would love to conduct a research project to evaluate this idea of Troops to Teachers. I am a trained researcher. My research would have to be designed in such a way that it is far more likely I'm proven wrong in my assumptions than that they are confirmed. Trust me, I know how to do that. But somehow I don't believe that either side will make the money available.

Troops to teachers

And why ever not?

An article today in The Guardian / The Observer is sparking a debate on Twitter. (You can read the article here.) Teachers come from all walks of life, so why should this be an issue? According to the article:

Candidates, from the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, wouldn't need a degree and would undertake two years training on the job, with one day a week at university, qualifying them in around half the time it usually takes to become a teacher.

And why ever not?

I regularly have tears in my eyes when I look over the CV of a service leaver - what they have undertaken in terms of training and qualifications could easily fill a page. They have trained, led, planned, worked in teams. None of it - repeat: none - seems worth anything in civvie street. 

Now, if "troops" become teachers, they still have to go through all the same assessments, tests, and exams. They won't automatically become teachers - they have to pass.

So what's the problem?

Nobody says - as suggested by Mr. Northice from the "frontline" (I assume he  means the frontline in the classroom") - that someone who has served is, per se, a good role model for children. That's why they don't automatically qualify as teachers!

But he's more seriously wrong in his assumptions about service personnel. He says that:

the Armed Forces are about using violence, force, aggression and/ or coercion to maintain the dominance of a nationalist narrative within a country's domestic and foreign policy, and the experience of its citizens' cultural life. That is not teaching.    

No, of course it isn't. Nor does it reflect the daily reality of being in HM Armed Forces. Mr. Northice - if that is your name - have you actually ever spoken to somebody who is serving? I  have spend a lot of time over the past two years doing just that; and I can assure you that 99% of the time, aggression, force, violence would get you nowhere and would be sanctioned. Even out in Afghanistan, their aim is to work with the local police and population - not fight them.

The Service personnel I have met were, without exception, friendly, polite, humble, articulate, attentive - and calm. I've never witnessed any of them lose their temper, raise their voice, or insist on being right. 

So - if they pass and make it into teacher training - then they will be extremely good role models, indeed.

"That sort of thing"

Yesterday, I attended the monthly meeting of The Liquid List (The List UK) in London. The guest speaker this time was Major General James Rupert Everard CBE, the current Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff. He spoke about transferable skills of service leavers.

Now, he didn't say anything with which I would disagree; but it was a strangely detached speech.

     Service leavers have a range of transferable skills.
     We all know what those are.
     They are generally appreciated by employers.
     All you have to do is identify and describe them.
     Good luck with it.

I'm over-simplifying, of course. However, several times during his short speech, he used the expression "that sort of thing" - when referring to CV writing, preparing for interviews, planning a new career. As if all that was something dirty with which he didn't really want to be associated.

Not for the first time it dawned on me:
In the not too distant future, he will be one of "them" - a service leaver. He might not be made redundant, but he might still not feel ready for "retirement", for doing nothing. Like all the others, he will have to deal with "that sort of thing". And he won't be any better prepared than any of them.

Initially, I was disappointed with the speech. Now I think I understand. I have spoken with so many service leavers - Private, Naval Commander, Lieutenant Colonel, Brigadier - initially, "that sort of thing" is alien to all of them. Fortunately, they all have the skills to master this challenge eventually - it just takes a bit of time and determination ... and a little bit of competent, coordinated and compassionate help.

The MOD is a long way from embracing the challenge that a career in the Military is no longer "for life" - for anybody. (I know, for many that has never been the case.) New recruits are joining every day - but, quite likely, they will be no better prepared for "that sort of thing" when their time comes.

Maybe, just maybe, the Veterans' Transition Review will make a difference - but that remains to be seen.