Applying from outside Canada (Merged)

[OscarMike]

Why not just say where you're from? You obviously have a lot to hide.

Protecting my privacy and the neutrality of my Canadian Forces application doesn't constitute to hiding anything.

Well they do that as well. Criminologists are "critics" and "advisers" for the most part. Forensic Psychologists and Forensic Criminologist play a whole other role, but still in similar fashion.

The criminologists I have found are mainly crime analysts or researchers. More specialist crime analysts have secondary education in the fields of accounting, forensics, psychology or another field. Criminology is important when planning out policing strategies, such as hotspot policing, or transitioning it into play as information-lead policing which is applicable to front-line policing.

 

[brihard]

The only reason I did a PF was because it was more affordable for me at the time.

I was given some very great advice from my Training Officer during my Work Placement Module with Delta Police, to take another Diploma or Certificate Program - I've selected an Accounting Diploma and a Forensic Studies certificate that is a online self-paced delivery (which I'm starting in September after I complete DP1 and DP2 over the summer). While I don't particularly fancy working in Financial Crimes if I were in a standard Police Service, it gives me breadth. I'm a Front Line/Beat Type person so I'll be happy with anything. My new employer has been very supportive and empowering of everything.

The Forensic Studies certificate- is that through JIBC? I'm enough of the academic type that even while I work towards things panning out (likely pretty soon) I've always got an ear to the ground for 'value added'.

From my research, an undergraduate degree is 4 years. For every month of sponsorship, you need to give two back. 4 x 2 is 8, yes?

Your research is incorrect.

in my country

Yeah... Enough said, right there. Almost literally an instance of your 'true colours' showing through. Please don't waste any of the time of the military of my country. We need dedicated Canadians, not citizens of convenience who want to milk our system for a free education.

 

[OscarMike]

MPs, to my knowledge, are badged & recognized peace officers under the criminal code, and they do 'policing' to the extent that it is required in the CF community, as well as police work and far more in operational zones.  MPOs, to my knowledge, are NOT badged peace officers.  They are not as readily eligible for lateral transfer as their NCM counterparts.

I wasn't referring to Canada in my quote, but yes you are correct under the Criminal Code, military police are peace officers. Contrary to here.

Also, your math is wrong.  It's 2 months per month of subsidized education; your summer training is not subsidized education, it is military training.  Obligatory service typically ends up being approximately 5 years, although it can very from trade to trade based on training periods (ie. pilot).

Fair enough. I was using the wrong calculations, not that my math is wrong. I'd be willing to do 8 years.

Also, if you're currently studying at a university, why would it take you a whole 4 years for an undergrad here?  I don't know much about international education recognition, but, unless you have done very little studying, I would imagine you'd be able to knock a bit of time off your degree here, no?  Hard to say because of how vague you're being about your situation, but that's fine by me.

Been in contact with a few universities. They told most of my units would not transfer over or be applicable. Perhaps I'm just approaching the wrong universities. They said out of something like 10 units, only 2 would count and only towards electives.

 

[JorgSlice]

The Forensic Studies certificate- is that through JIBC? I'm enough of the academic type that even while I work towards things panning out (likely pretty soon) I've always got an ear to the ground for 'value added'.

Mount Royal University, it is fairly new and sounds very intriguing in its limited capacity. There's talk of it being expanded in the future.

Protecting my privacy and the neutrality of my Canadian Forces application doesn't constitute to hiding anything.

The criminologists I have found are mainly crime analysts or researchers. More specialist crime analysts have secondary education in the fields of accounting, forensics, psychology or another field. Criminology is important when planning out policing strategies, such as hotspot policing, or transitioning it into play as information-lead policing which is applicable to front-line policing.

How do you think they came up with Policing Strategies and crime analysis and such before Criminology was a study you could attend a shiny-paper for in a University because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a relatively new thing (new being in the last 30 years)? Police Officer's experiences and academics with other fields of studies? Yeah right...  :

 

[OscarMike]

The rest of it - my opinion - is rather qualified professional one. I as an NCO would not wish that I or my troops be subjected to your command based on what you've told us thus far about your ethic of service to Canada and your intend to milk what you can and then bugger off- you can determine what that opinion is worth, if anything. And I say that coolly and objectively.

I suppose that I am lucky that, as an NCO, your opinion is not taken into consideration when it comes to who gains a commission as you have no say in the matter.

Yes, because wanting to leave after minimum contract of service means poor ethics and reflects poor leadership skills.  :

 

[OscarMike]

Mount Royal University, it is fairly new and sounds very intriguing in its limited capacity. There's talk of it being expanded in the future.

How do you think they came up with Policing Strategies and crime analysis and such before Criminology was a study you could attend a shiny-paper for in a University because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a relatively new thing (new being in the last 30 years)? Police Officer's experiences and academics with other fields of studies? Yeah right...  :

It was criminologists, e.g. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, who came up with policing strategies, which are used today, such as "zero-tolerance policing" ?

If you consider the mid-18th century as being "relatively new", sure.

 

[brihard]

I suppose that I am lucky that, as an NCO, your opinion is not taken into consideration when it comes to who gains a commission as you have no say in the matter.

Yes, because wanting to leave after minimum contract of service means poor ethics and reflects poor leadership skills.  :

Poor leadership, not necessarily. Wanting to simply get a free education, serve a minimal period, then leave- yes, I'll call that poor ethics, as would many.

And no, I certainly have no say. Yet I do have enough experienced that looking over this whole thread, I'm honestly not particularly worried about it.

You have a good day.

 

[JorgSlice]

It was criminologists, e.g. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, who came up with policing strategies, which are used today, such as "zero-tolerance policing" ?

If you consider the mid-18th century as being "relatively new", sure.

Wilson graduated in Political Science and Kelling in Social Welfare and Philosophy... and neither of which were Police Officers. Which proves my point, they are not Criminologists in the sense that they have PhDs let alone undergrad degrees in Criminology and have never actually been able to put that to use as a Beat Cop. Criminology doesn't help you in a Domestic Violence call.

These "administrators" and "Criminologists" may have implemented things that are now modern policing guidelines or regulations, and think that what they are doing are "good ideas" and "useful" for the average beat cop... however most of it has no application to a Beat Cop and may have actually hindered Policing abilities over the years. I will admit though, faux-Criminologists like Kelling and Wilson have come up with some good ideas.

I suppose that I am lucky that, as an NCO, your opinion is not taken into consideration when it comes to who gains a commission as you have no say in the matter.

Yes, because wanting to leave after minimum contract of service means poor ethics and reflects poor leadership skills.  :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33510.0 - The Canadian Forces Ethos... pay particular attention to the part about Loyalty to Canada, which you've clearly displayed little to none as you just wish to take advantage and leave.

I\m done now

 

[MusclesGlasses]

op:

 

[brihard]

op:

Nah, I'm done with this clown.

 

[OscarMike]

Wilson graduated in Political Science and Kelling in Social Welfare and Philosophy...

Both are Criminologists. Social Welfare/work encompasses Criminology. You can take Criminology under many areas including Political Science, Social Welfare, Science, etc.

Thanks for trying though. You just cannot win when you're not even studying it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

For anybody who thinks that it is wrong for somebody to serve the minimum time and then leave, it is not. Our system is designed that way. If the intent was to keep people in longer, the obligatory service period would be lengthened to that longer period. A commitment to the current minimum is sufficient. Somebody may join with the intent to serve until CRA and then decide otherwise, or join with the intent to leave upon reaching the end of his/her obligatory service and decide to stay much longer.

That said, the feeling that people are somehow abusing the system by leaving at the end of the minimum time is not uncommon.

Best post of the day. 

 

[jwtg]

I wasn't referring to Canada in my quote, but yes you are correct under the Criminal Code, military police are peace officers. Contrary to here.

I guess my point is that I'm making a distinction between NCM MPs and commissioned MPs.  I know that the RCMP make this distinction when considering applicants.  Commissioned MPOs do not qualify for lateral.  It's worth looking into whether or not MPO would make you eligible for a lateral application with whichever service you're interested in.

The point here is that you can't generalize MPs.  MP and MPO are very different. 

 

[brihard]

For anybody who thinks that it is wrong for somebody to serve the minimum time and then leave, it is not. Our system is designed that way. If the intent was to keep people in longer, the obligatory service period would be lengthened to that longer period. A commitment to the current minimum is sufficient. Somebody may join with the intent to serve until CRA and then decide otherwise, or join with the intent to leave upon reaching the end of his/her obligatory service and decide to stay much longer.

That said, the feeling that people are somehow abusing the system by leaving at the end of the minimum time is not uncommon.

In many instances I would agree. I have no problem with those who discover, on taking an honest stab at it, that it's not for them. Such is a call made in good faith on their part and I wish anyone well who gave it a real shot and only experientially found it's not for them.

But such policies are made almost actuarially. Yes, we know some people will decide to milk the system, and that others will do their 35, and that many will leave somewhat before a full career but not on obligatory service + a day. The fact that it's 'written in' to the policy as something we understand and accept isn't what I or, I think, others take issue with. My issue is with those who from the very outset have no intention of service beyond that needed to give them the most expedient ride they can get out of it. Because in those instances the *ethic* of service is lacking. It's a burden and an onus that they must bear out to get to what they really want. Maybe that just bothers me a bit.

I also understand the difference between what I hold as my own opinion, and what a broader idea of what is right or wrong may be. And I certainly don't mistake my opinion of it as 'wrong' as having any regulatory or statutory weight. I simply won't wish any good fortune on anyone looking from the outset to use ROTP as a teat to be milked dry and then walked away from as soon as they're able. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Loachman]

Fair enough, but for most of the members here that have been to corners and have done and seen terrible things during their dedication to Canada, it's insulting that all that is in your mind is to take advantage of your dual-citizenship... expect to get subsidized education, fulfill your Obligatory Service only to flee back to your Overseas lair and become a police officer with disillusioned thoughts of how you're going to get there.

Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with he wants to do.

Further to this, I noticed, during my Pilot training, that those candidates who intended to fly transport aircraft so that they could bail for an airline job as soon as they had completed the minimum obligatory service washed out to a man. I was one of many who derived some measure of pleasure from that. I ascribe their failures to poor motivation.

 

[Shamrock]

For anybody who thinks that it is wrong for somebody to serve the minimum time and then leave, it is not. Our system is designed that way. If the intent was to keep people in longer, the obligatory service period would be lengthened to that longer period. A commitment to the current minimum is sufficient. Somebody may join with the intent to serve until CRA and then decide otherwise, or join with the intent to leave upon reaching the end of his/her obligatory service and decide to stay much longer.

That said, the feeling that people are somehow abusing the system by leaving at the end of the minimum time is not uncommon.

Perhaps, another perspective may help.  I find quite a few of those who rail against minimum-service-and-release mentality are those who are still in the recruiting process.  Given the scarcity of positions and the competitiveness to get them, it seems to cheapen their own efforts.

 

[JorgSlice]

Like it or not, there is nothing wrong with he wants to do.

Further to this, I noticed, during my Pilot training, that those candidates who intended to fly transport aircraft so that they could bail for an airline job as soon as they had completed the minimum obligatory service washed out to a man. I was one of many who derived some measure of pleasure from that. I ascribe their failures to poor motivation.

I see it in the same light, I just have this thing where I believe that all people are capable of great things, but yes... there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[brihard]

Perhaps, another perspective may help.  I find quite a few of those who rail against minimum-service-and-release mentality are those who are still in the recruiting process.  Given the scarcity of positions and the competitiveness to get them, it seems to cheapen their own efforts.

I could see that for some, yeah. Certainly far from the case for some of us though.

Loach- you've obviously got a closer perspective on this than I do, and I respect that. The washout rates you cite are encouraging at least.

 

[Jarnhamar]

While the community here will likely look down on someone seeking the least amount of time effort dedication and service in exchange for free schooling there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Coming across looking self-centered condescending and combative with what looks like a case of self-entitlement is bad situational awareness and one can only expect harsh responses.

Pulling the "I pay taxes" card makes you sound like a typical protester screaming 'my taxes pay your salary' followed by joyous cries of 'baby killer'.

What your taxes entitle you to is a whole new debate- but throwing it out in a thread like this makes you look like a douche bag so don't expect much respect.

 

[Loachman]

I suppose that I am lucky that, as an NCO, your opinion is not taken into consideration when it comes to who gains a commission as you have no say in the matter.

While Brihard's opinion, specifically, may not be taken into consideration, it would not be wise to discount the opinions of other NCOs who will play roles in your selection and consequent success or failure at several stages in the recruiting and training phases. Should one NCO form such an opinion, you should anticipate others forming similar, if not identical, opinions.

The vast majority of us are rather dedicated to our chosen profession. Lower levels of dedication, and especially complete absences, are not highly regarded as you have discovered. That poorly-motivated (perceived or real) individuals may be in a position to influence members' lives and wellbeing to their detriment is not going to sit well with those members and that is what you are seeing here.

While I have pointed out that there is nothing wrong with doing as you propose, and that the system permits it, your lack of real interest lowers your desireability from a military viewpoint and competitiveness from a recruiting one.

The perceived tone of your posts also grates as others have pointed out.