BMQ In Esquimault Shut Down Due to Recruits’ Bad Behaviour

[Brad Sallows]

If it's done right, how many days should pass before they realize they're all in it together.

 

[FSTO]

I was listening to a CBC interview with the CDS and this issue came up. The interviewer asked the CDS how this could still be happening. The general was being very diplomatic but I would have said "JFC, the CAF has no influence on how these kids are raised! Why don't you go ask the parents? The only failure on our part is that they weren't flag during the initial recruiting process. We control what we can control and don't you think that its good that we discovered these bad actors and have rooted them out before they got any further up the CAF food chain?"

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was listening to a CBC interview with the CDS and this issue came up. The interviewer asked the CDS how this could still be happening. The general was being very diplomatic but I would have said "JFC, the CAF has no influence on how these kids are raised! Why don't you go ask the parents? The only failure on our part is that they weren't flag during the initial recruiting process. We control what we can control and don't you think that its good that we discovered these bad actors and have rooted them out before they got any further up the CAF food chain?"

Criticize the CAF screening process? The first rule of politics is to never admit that you are part of the problem.

 

[medicineman]

Given the huge verging on almost insane amount of screening that is supposed to be happening prior to them attending or so we keep being told....what the hell happened ?

People lie on screening questionnaires all the time - you know how many times I've caught irregular enrollments on medical screenings...or the times the pre-deployment or routine PHA screening forms were answered inappropriate to gender or known history simply because they were just checking off the "NO" box so they wouldn't miss a deployment/lose their environmental/specialist allowances, get grounded, etc? Same goes for racist/sexist tendencies - interviewees can sometimes/often keep a good enough lid on things to get past a canned interview playlist. Interviewers need to access open sources on SM, all relevant background and reliability screening info prior to the interview process and develop a line of questioning to push people's buttons, etc. I loved button pushing during Recruit medical screenings - especially on re-enrollees that had previously been discharged due to maladaptive behaviours or people that frequently applied and screened out for drug or psychologic/psychiatric issues- I always had access to their previous medical and discharge files. It's not because I like watching people squirm BTW - I like watching people squirm that I know are flagrantly lying and then they get caught in the lie and continue digging that hole even after being called out. I think if more PSO's were doing the interviews, some of these folks could be weeded out - they all generally have training in psychology at an undergrad and sometimes graduate level, so have that mindset to ask the same question a number of times in a different form and from a different angle.

At the end of the day though:

 

[Remius]

People lie on screening questionnaires all the time - you know how many times I've caught irregular enrollments on medical screenings...or the times the pre-deployment or routine PHA screening forms were answered inappropriate to gender or known history simply because they were just checking off the "NO" box so they wouldn't miss a deployment/lose their environmental/specialist allowances, get grounded, etc? Same goes for racist/sexist tendencies - interviewees can sometimes/often keep a good enough lid on things to get past a canned interview playlist. Interviewers need to access open sources on SM, all relevant background and reliability screening info prior to the interview process and develop a line of questioning to push people's buttons, etc. I loved button pushing during Recruit medical screenings - especially on re-enrollees that had previously been discharged due to maladaptive behaviours or people that frequently applied and screened out for drug or psychologic/psychiatric issues- I always had access to their previous medical and discharge files. It's not because I like watching people squirm BTW - I like watching people squirm that I know are flagrantly lying and then they get caught in the lie and continue digging that hole even after being called out. I think if more PSO's were doing the interviews, some of these folks could be weeded out - they all generally have training in psychology at an undergrad and sometimes graduate level, so have that mindset to ask the same question a number of times in a different form and from a different angle.

At the end of the day though:

Liar.

 

[daftandbarmy]

People lie on screening questionnaires all the time - you know how many times I've caught irregular enrollments on medical screenings...or the times the pre-deployment or routine PHA screening forms were answered inappropriate to gender or known history simply because they were just checking off the "NO" box so they wouldn't miss a deployment/lose their environmental/specialist allowances, get grounded, etc? Same goes for racist/sexist tendencies - interviewees can sometimes/often keep a good enough lid on things to get past a canned interview playlist. Interviewers need to access open sources on SM, all relevant background and reliability screening info prior to the interview process and develop a line of questioning to push people's buttons, etc. I loved button pushing during Recruit medical screenings - especially on re-enrollees that had previously been discharged due to maladaptive behaviours or people that frequently applied and screened out for drug or psychologic/psychiatric issues- I always had access to their previous medical and discharge files. It's not because I like watching people squirm BTW - I like watching people squirm that I know are flagrantly lying and then they get caught in the lie and continue digging that hole even after being called out. I think if more PSO's were doing the interviews, some of these folks could be weeded out - they all generally have training in psychology at an undergrad and sometimes graduate level, so have that mindset to ask the same question a number of times in a different form and from a different angle.

At the end of the day though:

 

[brihard]

Give the one biggest, most egregious issue out of the several things that happened on that course, and given the need to determine exactly who had knowledge of it and who chose not to come forward despite knowing, I’d say that in this rare case a total halt to the course was merited in order to allow things to be sorted out. It’s not just about the candidates, but also a need to take a hard look at whether failures extended into the course staff and whether that’s able to be mitigated or corrected and then move forward, or whether the other all quality and integrity of the course is irreparably compromised. I don’t have answers to that and don’t know enough to say. I do think it’s reasonable for it to be examined by those who do and can.

 

[medicineman]

Liar.

 

[Kilted]

Give the one biggest, most egregious issue out of the several things that happened on that course, and given the need to determine exactly who had knowledge of it and who chose not to come forward despite knowing, I’d say that in this rare case a total halt to the course was merited in order to allow things to be sorted out. It’s not just about the candidates, but also a need to take a hard look at whether failures extended into the course staff and whether that’s able to be mitigated or corrected and then move forward, or whether the other all quality and integrity of the course is irreparably compromised. I don’t have answers to that and don’t know enough to say. I do think it’s reasonable for it to be examined by those who do and can.

Hopefully, this doesn't become a SOP every time something happens, every course would get shut down. As far as determining who saw what and didn't report it, sadly it still often comes down to if someone is more afraid of their superiors or more afraid of their peers. I know this is something that we are trying to get rid of, but it still happens.

 

[ModlrMike]

It may sound like I'm overly cynical, over the years my default position towards interviews is everybody lies. Some are lies of omission, some white lies of no consequence, and some are deliberate lies designed to hide ulterior motives. I don't have too much issue with the first two as they're generally made from innocent motives, it's the last one we have to be on guard for.

 

[markppcli]

Sexualized comments towards staff ? Am I unique in remember only fearing my staff in training ?

 

[boonie_hat_47]

Sexualized comments towards staff ? Am I unique in remember only fearing my staff in training ?

Fear is a powerful aphrodisiac

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Navy runs their own BMQ in Esquimalt? When did this happen?

 

[kev994]

People lie on screening questionnaires all the time - you know how many times I've caught irregular enrollments on medical screenings...or the times the pre-deployment or routine PHA screening forms were answered inappropriate to gender or known history simply because they were just checking off the "NO" box so they wouldn't miss a deployment/lose their environmental/specialist allowances, get grounded, etc? Same goes for racist/sexist tendencies - interviewees can sometimes/often keep a good enough lid on things to get past a canned interview playlist. Interviewers need to access open sources on SM, all relevant background and reliability screening info prior to the interview process and develop a line of questioning to push people's buttons, etc. I loved button pushing during Recruit medical screenings - especially on re-enrollees that had previously been discharged due to maladaptive behaviours or people that frequently applied and screened out for drug or psychologic/psychiatric issues- I always had access to their previous medical and discharge files. It's not because I like watching people squirm BTW - I like watching people squirm that I know are flagrantly lying and then they get caught in the lie and continue digging that hole even after being called out. I think if more PSO's were doing the interviews, some of these folks could be weeded out - they all generally have training in psychology at an undergrad and sometimes graduate level, so have that mindset to ask the same question a number of times in a different form and from a different angle.

At the end of the day though:

In fairness, I never know what to do with the pregnancy questions, I mean I’m clearly not pregnant….

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Navy runs their own BMQ in Esquimalt? When did this happen?

BMQs are being decentralized.

It looks like the whole program will change with a common phase of drill, inspections, education ect and then an environmental phase, so for the Navy that would be NETP.

This will alleviate alot of the back log post initial trades training.

I think this is a smart move.

 

[dimsum]

Sexualized comments towards staff ? Am I unique in remember only fearing my staff in training ?

Direct staff, yes. I'm not sure if "staff" in this context included the GDs, etc that help out on courses.

 

[dimsum]

It looks like the whole program will change with a common phase of drill, inspections, education ect and then an environmental phase, so for the Navy that would be NETP.

So...the NCM equivalent of the old NAVRES BOTC/MARS 2 summer.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So...the NCM equivalent of the old NAVRES BOTC/MARS 2 summer.

I guess, I really don't know how that ran. I was NAVRES for a heart beat in the late 90s.

 

[dimsum]

I guess, I really don't know how that ran. I was NAVRES for a heart beat in the late 90s.

11-week BOTC, then 5-week MARS 2 (later called NETP-O, not sure what it's called now). It was at HMCS VENTURE in Esquimalt.

 

[stoker dave]

Can someone please clarify if this was an NCM or officer course? Thank you.