We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers (not Sisters)...

The Mail on Sunday has published a story claiming that a near mutiny occurred after a female soldier was allegedly not removed from a course after failing a key test. The report suggests that this soldier, along with 14 others, failed the test but that it took more than 24 hours to remove them, prompting suggestions of push back by the course that double standards were being applied. This story was roundly rejected by the Army, which made clear that no standards had been reduced and inferring that was reported was less than accurate.

Humphrey’s view is simple – the people involved that need to take a long hard look in the mirror right now are the individuals (all of whom were reportedly Non-Commissioned Officers) who felt it was appropriate to contact the media and let them conduct what was effectively a very public career assassination on a fellow serving soldier.

For all the talk of ‘duty’, ‘honour’, ‘loyalty’ and other strong words used regularly by soldiers, these attributes seem to have been in conspicuous short supply by some members of this course. What sort of utter coward rings up a national newspaper to anonymously betray a fellow soldier simply because they were a woman who happened to fail a test?

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

The reality is that courses with pass/fail tests will always generate failures. One of the reasons the British Army is successful is that it has an uncompromising pursuit of excellence and standards. It has repeatedly made clear that standards have not been lowered for female soldiers.

Lets be clear here, 15 soldiers reportedly failed that test and were removed from the course (RTU’d). The only one who is named and pictured is the sole female failure. This isn’t news, it’s a witch hunt by dinosaurs desperately seeking any excuse to prove a point that somehow women ‘can’t’ be infantry soldiers.

There is a suggestion on a well-known Army website that there were 75 people on the course, so to RTU 15 after one test is a 20% failure rate. Where are the legions of male soldiers protesting the poor physical standards of male infantry soldiers, clearly unable to do their job? The silence is deafening.

The debate on various Army websites also suggests that there may have been all manner of reasons why (if what is being reported is even remotely accurate) someone may not have left the course immediately. There can be many reasons for people to stay on overnight, or to wait prior to departing – from returning kit, post course administration or possibly just because its too late in the day to travel. What is frustrating here is not the allegation that someone reportedly was held over, or that there was allegedly a ‘rebellion’, but that some soldiers still seem unable to handle the idea that women can be infanteers too.

There is a distinct irony that in a week where a small number of serving soldiers mocked and moaned about an extremely successful recruiting campaign (which saw the single biggest number of expressions of interest on the Army website in over a year as a result) over the fact that the Army was targeting ‘snowflakes’, that their own peers behaviour seems pretty snowflake like too. To go crying to the papers because you don’t like the fact that the nasty scary person without a willy is on the course and took a bit longer to go home after failing a run rather than just going ‘whatever’ and cracking on seems pretty snowflake like to be honest.

People fail tests all the time – yet given the fact that 14 males failed the course, do you hear people questioning whether the front line is a suitable place for men? No, of course not. Instead this is just an example of where a few very small-minded individuals seem unable to handle the idea that just because women can be infanteers, that doesn’t change the absolute standard to which they are judged.

A bigger question is whether what has happened here though – namely the leaking to the press is something that seems to occur with alarming regularity in some quarters. For all the likelihood that a leak investigation will follow, is there much difference between the concept of a group of NCO’s leaking to the press that someone failed a course, or the regular and repeated leaks of ‘options’ and plans by very senior officers to the press when something is happening that they don’t support?

Ultimately there has been a significant values and standards fail here, but is this any different to the way that some senior officers feel that protecting capbadge loyalty warrants privately passing protectively marked and sensitive information on defence cut options to protect their own interests and not the nations as a whole?

Leaking is not acceptable under any circumstances. What is needed is behaviours at all levels to reflect this, and try to ensure that people respect and protect the privileged information that they have access to, and not leak like a faulty pipe every time that something they don’t like may be on the verge of happening. 

One good thing that has emerged is the robust and swift response from the unit in question via social media, making clear standards have not changed. Again, this is a good example of the Army really gripping, using and exploiting social media channels to communicate far more effectively than in the past.

The key frustration here is the way that a soldier who has done nothing worse than fail a test has been publicly humiliated in a media article because her peers chose to let her down. This is utterly unacceptable, and the culprits should be found and severely punished – not just for the leak, but for their immaturity and willingness to intentionally target fellow soldiers in this manner – there is no excuse for this under any circumstances.

It is sad that in 2019 there are still people who seem unable to cope with the basic concept that women are soldiers, that they are bloody good soldiers and that they have a long history of service on the front line and in firefights where they have more than distinguished themselves. Very few people want to be in the infantry – it is a difficult, demanding and very dangerous job that requires a lot of its people.

We owe it to stand by everyone, male or female, who wants to be in the infantry and offer them our full support and thanks. People serving deserve better than being subjected to being stabbed in the back and betrayed by their peers, or trial by media for no reason other than the fact they are a woman.