So, Mike, why didn't you say so when you, just maybe, could've made a difference?

[Confucius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215296.stm

Former Army chief criticises MoD

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, has criticised the way in which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) runs the armed forces.
Speaking at the annual Dimbleby Lecture, he said there was a failure in the MoD to understand the fundamental nature of soldiering.
He added that wages paid to soldiers were "hardly impressive" and "some accommodation" was "frankly, shaming".
But the MoD said it was always working to improve conditions for its forces.
Sir Mike retired as the head of the Army in August.
Questioning the MoD's understanding of the fundamental ethos of the armed forces, he told his audience: "One's loyalty must be from the bottom.
"Sadly, I did not find this fundamental proposition shared by the MoD."
He suggested that not enough was being done to care for servicemen and women, as well as their families.
"Not much over £1,000 a month for the private soldier for what he or she is doing on operations is hardly an impressive figure," said Sir Mike.
He went on to add that "some accommodation is still, frankly, shaming and hemmed around by petty regulation".
The former Army chief told his audience it was "time that real authority was restored to the Chiefs of Staff in order to match the responsibility which indubitably and rightly they carry".
He also hit out at the "diminution" of the authority of chiefs of staff - his former role at the Army.
Sir Mike later turned his attention to the culture of "commercial so-called 'best practice', with its... targets".
During his speech, he hit out at a "Kafka-esque situation whereby the MoD congratulates itself on achieving an accommodation improvement plan defined by itself on what it calls affordability, but which is far from what is defined by the needs of soldiers and their families".
General Sir Mike Jackson stepped down as chief of the general staff in August.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams said the comments were "bound to cause offence in some circles" and were likely to be "taken seriously" by those high up within the MoD.
"I'm sure there will be those who raise a glass because they don't like the MoD either."
But our correspondent went on to say Sir Mike was "not universally respected", adding that some people may think "it is a bit late to stand up for the common soldier", given his recent retirement.
A spokesman for the MoD said: "General Jackson is fully entitled... to voice his opinion on these important issues."
He added the MoD was "staffed by civil servants and members of the Armed Forces working closely together... with a clear sense that their priority is to support our forces on the front line".
"While we do not agree with everything Sir Mike has said, we are always the first to recognise - for example in relation to medical services and accommodation - that although we have delivered real improvements, there is more we can do.
"We are always striving to make things better for our forces and we are always open to informed criticism."

[passpartout]

Yes,

Big of him to say this after he's retired.

I hope he got paid for giving the lecture. It must be hell surviving on his pension.

[ShyTorque]

"One's loyalty must be from the bottom."

Soldiers getting a bum deal?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Gosh..........an Ex senior officer with his snout in the trough......imagine my surprise:rolleyes:
Pity that during his tenure he was not so vociferous but I guess there were pension considerations:}
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O

Edited to state I am an arse:O

Just watched with rapt fascination and I thought he was superb, well done sir:D :D :D

[Uncle Ginsters]

A spokesman for the MoD said.....
"While we do not agree with everything Sir Mike has said, we are always the first to recognise - for example in relation to medical services and accommodation - that although we have delivered real improvements

So what 'real improvements' have they made to medical services - chopping almost the entire Military hospital system, thus funnelling our war-weary into the cusp of the NHS, albeit as second-rate customers? Oh really?

It just goes to show, even as CoS, you can't polish a turd when it comes to MoD penny-pinching policy:ugh:
At least he's spoken now.
Uncle G

[L J R]

Although the General may have been paid and should have mentioned this stuff while he was driving the train set, hopefully it will raise the issue of housing. Simply put the Cra*p that DHE go on about housing is utterly utterly wrong. Changing definitions to make stats look good is typical of most defence support agencies.

MoD's response is yet again typical of a Ministry that does not give a shi*t about the welfare of chaps that are being killed, nor of their devoted families.

[The Swinging Monkey]

It really never ceases to amaze me how people like Sir Mike change their attitude as they go through their carreer. I have seen it a million times in the Air Farce.

You get a young baby Fg Off who is going to 'change the world' You hear them in the crew room about how this needs changing, and that needs doing and 'if I were OC XXXX squadron then I'd do it this way Blah' Great stuff to hear from a JO. But it don't last.............................................

They rise to Flt Lt, go off and come back as a Sqn Ldr, where already, their outlook on things has begun to change ever so slightly. Gone is the thrust and thunder attitude, now there is a less harsh, perhaps even a more 'sensible' take on things. But nevertheless, their underlying view still remains the same, albeit somewhat calmer now.

After a tour as Sqn Ldr/Flt Cdr they go off again and come back (quite often to the same sqn or fleet) as a Wg Cdr. Now there is a significant change. The 'punchy' attitude from a couple of ranks ago has almost disapeared, and has been replaced with a far more 'company man' attitude. The Company is 1st, last, and anything in between frankly! (Not all Sqn Cdrs are like this I know, but I'm refering to the majority here)

Off again, and soon to return as the 'Staish where he is still very much the 'company man' but now apears to have mellowed just a little. 'Maybe he is returning to his roots you think??' Lets hope so. But NO........................

The next time we see our man, he is now of Air Rank, where he effectively IS the company, and he 'aint gonner rock the boat and change anything' - he has his positiion and pension to think about now (the position on the board that is!!)

I just wish I knew what happened to our little Fg Off types when they go 'off' in between ranks, because whatever it is, it sure does have a lasting impression on them.

It dosn't suprise me in the least to find Sir Mike now bashing his former boss's for what they didn't do. Sorry Mike, you have had the chance during the last few ranks of your life to make a real change, but either couldn't be bothered to take up the challenge or were thinking too much of that pension sh1t stuff! (or maybe that position on the board of 'Tanks are Us'

Get back to prunning your roses, you now have the rank of 'has been' (and failed)

Kind regards to all, and best wishes for Crimbo', especially to everyone out in the Gulf, Afghanistan and anyone away from their loved ones. Be Safe

TSM

[The Helpful Stacker]

I know General Sir Mike Jackson was an Army man all his career but seeing as his last job was as top military man for all three services and he's swam in purple waters for many years his briefing came across a little "the Army are great, oh and the other services helped a bit" .

His summation was all Army and even as an ex-Army type myself I found it a little distasteful given that the casualties RAF, RN and RM's have also taken fighting these damned ego trip wars.

[BEagle]

"I just wish I knew what happened to our little Fg Off types when they go 'off' in between ranks, because whatever it is, it sure does have a lasting impression on them."

Off to the Adult Literacy Centre at Watchfield, no doubt?

Of course if they don't go, if they are good enough they eventually become grumbling Ancient Aviators who get right up the noses of the thrusting little to$$eurs back from their brain washing in Swindonia full of self importance..... Because these BOFs tend to speak the truth, not the 'management scribbldegook' spouted by the thrusters!

[FLI]

The Helpful Stacker said,
"I know General Sir Mike Jackson was an Army man all his career but seeing as his last job was as top military man for all three services and he's swam in purple waters for many years his briefing came across a little "the Army are great, oh and the other services helped a bit" .
His summation was all Army and even as an ex-Army type myself I found it a little distasteful given that the casualties RAF, RN and RM's have also taken fighting these damned ego trip wars."


He was CGS (G as in General not Marshal or Admiral). Nothing to do with the other Services.

[tucumseh]

A spokesman for the MoD (said)….. the MoD was "staffed by civil servants and members of the Armed Forces working closely together... with a clear sense that their priority is to support our forces on the front line".


The latter may, in part, still be true, but rest assured these miscreants will continue to be hunted down and dealt with severely. The priority of an increasing majority in MB, DPA, DLO etc is to keep their heads down, do their time and stuff everyone else. I’ve had people with enormous authority gawp and then laugh in my face at the very mention of “support” and “front line” in the same sentence.

[Mr Blake]

I listened to the lecture, and was impressed with its content, although I agree with previous posts - it would have had far more impact had the General still wore the uniform. Perhaps there is a guilt trip here post job, that he wasn't ultimately able to make a significant difference, and change the tide of progressive "business-isation" of the Forces. He touched on this in his speech, that the Services were a "political football", kicked about across the corridors of MOD, who continued to enforce the latest corporate mantra to justify the cuts that were necessary. However, with no defined end product, this philosophy is difficult to maintain. How many bullets, bombs, missiles are needed to complete any given mission? Impossible to quantify, and thus impossible to apply performance indicators to.

As for the proposed Army bias - that was inevitable. He was a soldier, and therefore talks about what he knows. Would Sir Jock be any different?

What would be amazing is if MOD did actually sit up and take notice. As a cynic, this is of course never going to happen, but one can only hope.

[L J R]

Although slightly late, at least he did raise the current issues and it is being discussed. Whether the discussions are being done in MoD, or will make any difference - only time will tell (refer to RAF in meltdown thread - ignoring RAF Club Dress hijack).

[Twonston Pickle]

Many have slated Mike Jackson for not speaking out sooner whilst in uniform. Would any of them be the same people who complained about Gen Dannatt speaking out whilst serving as the current CGS?

The press and critics cannot have it both ways; if they expect serving senior officers to tow the party line then they cannot criticise Gen Jackson for speaking now instead of during his tenure as CGS. Besides, how do we know that Gen Jackson hadn't spouted all this behind closed doors as CGS; he's hardly a shrinking violet and would make mincemeat of Strangly Browne.

[boogie-nicey]

Well at least he did say something at somepoint, surely that's better than nothing. Perhaps he recognised the politicisation of the MOD when he was 'in the job' to realise that such comments would have been instantly dismissed or tucked away in a small column on page 23 of a newpaper followed by his early dismissal "an opportunity to spend more time with the family after many years of loyal service".

Whether he was in the post or not the comments he makes now may well have more to do with Tony Blair's last days in the castle where they'd have more of an affect. These comments

However it's again the general public that's to blame here, why didn't they note the slow but steady erosion of the armed forces around them. Why didn't they show more interest in the welfare of the armed services especially since they are being called more often than a pizza delivery boy and bodies are returning from overseas conflict. Labour resent the armed forces and just see them as an easy target to slash and cut, disrespectful. I'm all for cutting the massive benefits mechanism reduced to a more sensible and practical level and the money invested in other 'areas' of society and defence.

General Sir Jackson, good man, right then who's next from the General staff, anyone else approaching retirement.

[Gus T Breeze]

It is so irritating to see a serving poodle become a retired rottweiler!

[flipster]

Any criticism of 'the system' bites yer bum when you are 'in' (been there done that!). Therefore, I have some sympathy with the General's apparent silence when 'in post' - after all, he also has family/mortgage/outgoings to support (just a bit bigger than mine, I suspect). Getting the the Order of the Boot as a result of daring to point out that emperor was, in fact, naked, would therefore, weigh heavily on anyone's decision to say so. Luckily, I had Plan B up my sleeve but obviously General Mike didn't, so he kept 'schtum' until he left. He was also playing for higher stakes!

Yes, his comments would have carried much more weight if he was still in but he he is no lightweight retired has-been. Unfortunately, he is retired and so the effects of his comments are somewhat diminished. Nonetheless, those of us who still care for the Services we left should welcome the General's side-swipe at the bean-counting, faceless, spineless MoD mandarins and politicians, who are ruining our defence capability.

One hopes that our offspring will not pay with their lives for the last few years of inept leadership and management by our generation.

[endplay]

General Jackson addressed the "Why didn't I speak up whilst in office question " during his speech. Along the lines of it being a 5 min wonder.
Some people seem to think he was CDS; he wasn't, that was Mike Walker prior to our own Sir Jock.
I doubt if he (Sir Jock) will fall on his sword at any time in office. He presided over the biggest kicking the RAF has ever experienced (IMHO) and although he said at various forums that a 41k Air Force was unviable, he let it happen. Could it be the difference between a 4* CAS at £150k pa and a 4* CDS starting rate of £197k rising to £214k had any bearing on his silence? I have my own view on that but decide for yourselves.

[airborne_artist]

Is it still the case that retired Airships don't get a pension as such, but retire on half-pay? Taking endplay's figures: 150/2 = 75; 214/2 = 107 difference of 32, or nearly 50% of the 75 number....

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Just watched bbc online's extract of the speech. Bravo old man! On yoof management speak and performance indicators:

"I am clear in my mind as to the only performance indicator which should matter to the armed forces: To achieve the objectives which are set, that is, to win!"

Before watching was feeling he should have spoken out whilst in tenure, but think that should put a rocket up someone somewhere anyhow!

[dum_my]

It's good that Mike Jackson is speaking out.
At least he is saying something about the current state of HM Forces.

Compare him to the RAF's most recently retired 4-star, Brian Burridge.
The only thing he has had to say since retiring is to promote heat pumps (http://www.iceenergy.co.uk/testimonials.asp) alongside his new wife.

[Basil]

As you all know, in the UK, serving military officers USUALLY refrain from public political comment but I would hope that some of the points made last night by General Jackson had been previously made privately to his political masters.
It is easy to blame the service chiefs but let's not forget that the Secretary of State for Defence allocates strategic tasking and will be well aware of the shortcomings of funding and equipment as are the PM and Chancellor.

The TV interview by Robin Day of Minister of Defence John Nott ". . why . . believe you . . here today gone tomorrow politician, rather than a senior officer of many years . . " rings as true today as it did 24 years ago.

Let's just throw our taxes at those who won't work, at our flood of immigrants, at those who demand but never contribute, at the Tower Hamlets of this world because they vote 'and it's votes that count!"

[Brian Abraham]

Lad I joined up with went on to a reasonably senior position and when inter service rivalry and political force conspired to propose a severe diminution of capability in his area of responsibility he went public via "60 Minutes". Not done old boy, and the pressure, and threats made to him by his masters and seniors I would adjudge lead a great part to the ill health he was to suffer later and his death but a fortnight ago. Earned the undying respect of all during his service and after his final stand the troops would have walked through fire and brimstone for him. Vale PC, you fought a good fight.

[FJJP]

AA

ISTR that up to and including 4* it's retirement and a pension determined annually by review.

5*s never retire - at the end of their active service they go on to half pay. [Of course, 5* is now a war-only rank].

Don't know if it has changed in recent years though...

FJJP

[Kitbag]

I only caught the last 10 minutes of the Generals lecture last night, but I have no doubt in my mind that he would have told the truth to our masters as he saw it at the time. Which is different to how things are now, events have moved on. Politicians tend to hear what they want to hear. He also rightly makes the point that the military are always subordinate to the 'will of the people' through the democratically elected government of the country.
I am particularly disappointed to find that instead of being congratulated on bringing this to the fore in the media he is regarded as a has been by some on this site who will probably fail to get to a similar position of seniority. I have no doubt he is an intelligent and incisive man who felt that constitutionally he could not speak out whilst serving. This is a particular trap set for the military by the executive, which really has no basis or sense in the modern era. I also feel galled that yet again it is the army who have the nouse to speak up on this matter, both serving and recently retired. Our own (and by that I mean The Airships) are noticeably keeping their heads down, at least in public, and that includes those who are taking an active role in politics following their retirement.
I feel the General is being unfairly and unreasonably criticised in this forum. Perhaps his critics here should show the way as serving personnel and speak up now, perhaps a letter to the Times, or an appearence on Any Questions/Any Answers, or any other non anonymous forum.
Takers anyone? :ugh:

[FJJP]

I believe that Lord Craig of Radley regularly gives the Govt a hard time on Service matters; he uses his peerage to further the interests of the Armed Forces. Pity he isn't in power - he could do so much good and kick a** in his own quiet way. He was one helluva AOC 1 Gp...

[Chugalug2]

Score so far CGS' 2- CAS' 0! :(
I would say that it ill behoves anyone in the aviation glasshouse (with the honourable exception of the AAC) to throw any stones at Gens. Jackson or Danatt. At least they stood up, ....eventually! It may be unprecedented, unwise, unproductive and every other 'un', but when the brown stuff hits the blades at least they can say they disassociated themselves from the business school theories of the MOD boy wonders. Everyone in HM Forces knows that the defence policies of this government (what a grand way to describe such a bunch of opinionated biased callous bullies!) are literally self defeating. Those who command the Air and Naval Staffs and have not seen fit to join their Army colleagues and present a united front may think that they are playing a clever game, they are not and will reap their just rewards as their services attain meltdown as described elsewhere. Unsheathe your swords gentlemen and fall on them, or stand alongside the Army and reverse this claptrap, but do something!
"What do we want?"
"An integrated chain of command and the restoration of the powers of a subordinate commander!"
"When do we want it?"
"In the foreseeable future!"
Sorry, still working on the chant, it seems to lack something!

[Pongochap]

One of many quotes:


The Army feels strongly that the greatest burden rests upon their shoulders, not least when it comes to numbers deployed and casualties sustained. If my erstwhile colleagues from the RN and RAF are feeling a little uncomfortable, I can only apologise. But the facts speak for themselves - logic has its own momentum. It is again a question of balance; taking away from Peter to pay Paul is a difficult and dangerous exercise; it can be avoided by better provision for both.


Contentious - although it's hard to not feel a little seen off on your 6 month freebie tour.

Anyway - many, many points for discussion from the General's lecture. However, a man of this capability speaking passionately about the Army is no bad thing. For all services.

As Kitbag said, and has been proved many times before (as the Navy will remember from the Suez crisis), falling on your sword gains little other than a 'what an honourable chap' and the govt and press crack on regardless. As officers, we should turn around to the chain of comd and raise our concerns, some more strongly than others, but once that decision is made it is up to us [officers] to crack on and lead. Yes, this may mean refusing orders and/or resigning.

Sir Mike, I suspect, was in a position where he could have resigned but what effect would it really have had a week later? Gen Dannat gained a great deal of press (as he is in post). Yet Gen Jackson’s words struck me as a man who had a great deal to say but felt he had an obligation to his chain of command. The politicians hold the cards. Whatever you say up, is very different to what you say to those below you. If the bosses boss is saying ‘it’s **** – why bother’. How can you expect junior commanders to maintain any sort of cohesion. I certainly don't think he was a perfect CGS, as the decimation of Regts seemed to lack higher reason and limited opposition.

Anyway, the full text:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TTXOTAUKPBXN1QFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/07/nosplit/ujackson107.xml

Discuss

[BillHicksRules]

To answer the title of the thread, Who here knows that he did not?

Just because he did not make a song and dance about it then in the press does not mean he did not speak up.

There is a difference between speaking up and speaking out but no reason one cannot do one then the other.

Maybe he just did what all he could whilst in and this is now all he can do.

To all those "armchair critics" what have you done to change things?

cheers

BHR

[Newton Heath]

To acheive the mission requires teamwork.

one man speaking up would isolate him as a target, so perhaps a concerted effort on mass would have the desired effect. MOD do not have the resources to throw everyone on a sword.

[Been There...]

To acheive the mission requires teamwork.

one man speaking up would isolate him as a target, so perhaps a concerted effort on mass would have the desired effect. MOD do not have the resources to throw everyone on a sword.
Isn't that called a revolution or a coup? :confused: :)

[Newton Heath]

Mmmmm, now there's a thought.:hmm:

To satisfy the requirements for a revolution there has to be a number of requisites in place first though.

Injustice
Lack of moral courage from leaders
Terrible conditions
Poverty
Feelings of unrest amongst the troops
etc etc.

Been There, you may have a point

[MrBernoulli]

I watched most of this and it was interesting ..... just far too late in the General's career to have any balsted effect!

Does anyone know whether a full transcript of this speech exists anywhere?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Kitbag,
People are following your comments Sir and voting the only way they can - by quitting! hence why all three services are so desperately undermanned.

Sir Mike may look good in the eyes of you, but to anyone who has had to put up with the phenominal cuts that have occurred recently, together with the overstretch, he is most certainly NOT.

Had he made such a public stand whilst still in post, where his comments might have made some difference, then yes, I would applaud him without doubt, as would most servicemen and women. The fact is however, he chose now, when his pension is safe and there can be no comeback, to act like a General and tell it as it is.

Maybe we should be grateful that its 'better late than never'

TSM

[Confucius]

I watched most of this and it was interesting ..... just far too late in the General's career to have any balsted effect!

Does anyone know whether a full transcript of this speech exists anywhere?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2491804,00.html

[Irish Tempest]

Just to get back to the senior officer moolah issue. Is everyone aware that officers 1* upwards get paid performance rated pay? i.e if they complete their TORs (part of which can be written by MOD (whitehall manderins)) they get an additonaly 5% of their total salary again - now tell me thats right and justified?
Silly old me, I thought military Officers were meant to be motivated to care for the wellbeing of the men and women under their command, rather than a financial incentive?

[Chugalug2]

Isn't that called a revolution or a coup? :confused: :)

No, it's called appealing over the heads of the politicians to their employers, ie the electorate. The one thing that terrifies those in power is the thought that they might lose it! Make it clear that they are reneging on their duty of care to the Armed Forces, and it will add to their unpopularity, especially in areas with close relationships with the military. Sticking to traditions of not speaking out in public is a luxury that means nothing changes and is no longer appropriate, given the desperate shortfalls in personnel, material and administrative support that all three services are suffering.
It is good that this country's Armed Forces are conscious of the constitutional, legal and traditional curbs on their power in a democracy. That does not mean that when their leaders are as concerned for them as they are now that they must be quiet. Speaking out is of course a two edged sword, so should be done only after careful thought, but is nonetheless a responsibility of a chief of staff if the situation calls for it. If he/she chooses not to do so for considerations of the effect on their personal fortunes(!), that is merely an indication that he/she was the wrong person appointed to that post.

[vecvechookattack]

People are following your comments Sir and voting the only way they can - by quitting! hence why all three services are so desperately undermannedWhere on earth do you get the "desperately undermanned" from ?

If you read the latest report from the NAO you will find that the Armed forces are undermanned by 2.8%. Undermanned I agree but hardly desperately. The Army is maintaining its balanced strength, the Navy is undermanned by 3.6% and the RAF are undermanned by 4.4% due to a redundancy trance in April 2006 (they did this on purpose ).
If you continue to read the NAO report on Armed Forces mannig you will see that all 3 Services will be at their trained strangth by April 2008.


Irish Tempest. Its not Just 1* that receive performance related pay. All aviators on the PA spine are also on performance related pay....from Lieutenants upwards.....and to be frank, I don't know of one military Offcier who is in the mob to to care for the wellbeing of the men and women under their commandMost military Officers I know (and I count myself in this) are in the Mob in order to pay the Mortgage.

[Been There...]

Where on earth do you get the "desperately undermanned" from ?

If you read the latest report from the NAO you will find that the Armed forces are undermanned by 2.8%. Undermanned I agree but hardly desperately. The Army is maintaining its balanced strength, the Navy is undermanned by 3.6% and the RAF are undermanned by 4.4% due to a redundancy trance in April 2006 (they did this on purpose ).
If you continue to read the NAO report on Armed Forces mannig you will see that all 3 Services will be at their trained strangth by April 2008.

Maybe the quote should have been, desperately undermanned in key areas such as pilots, medics and comms specialists (the only ones I can think of off the top of my head)...:cool:

[Roadster280]

It is so irritating to see a serving poodle become a retired rottweiler!

General Sir Mike Jackson is no poodle. Apart from being terrifyingly ugly, he is hard as nails, and takes $hit from no man. I served under him when he was Comd ARRC/Comd IFOR in Bosnia, and witnessed him rip a 1* a new ar$ehole in front of the entire HQ staff. It was unbelieveably embarrassing for the Brig, nobody knew where to look.

There is no doubt in my mind that as CGS he would have been banging on tables behind closed doors, and now he feels able to bang on the same tables openly.

Bravo :D :D :D

[Chugalug2]

, I don't know of one military Offcier who is in the mob to

"to care for the wellbeing of the men and women under their command"

Most military Officers I know (and I count myself in this) are in the Mob in order to pay the Mortgage.

I am truly shocked that a serving commissioned officer should make such an outrageous statement, and that thus far no one else has seen fit to challenge it. The implication is that the well being of those under your command is not your concern. I can only hope that no one is directly under your command, but even if that be the case, the well being of anyone with a subordinate status to yours should be your concern, simply because you are a serving officer. That is your duty and to ignore that responsibility would make you derelict in your duty. The confidence with which you make such a revelation implies that most fellow officers would concur. If that be so it explains a lot about the PVR rate now going through the roof from all ranks in the RAF. Meltdown indeed!

[Rev I. Tin]

Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
I don't know of one military Offcier who is in the mob to
"to care for the wellbeing of the men and women under their command"
Most military Officers I know (and I count myself in this) are in the Mob in order to pay the Mortgage.
You are an absolute disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[The Swinging Monkey]

vecvechookattack

You are a fool Sir (and I use the term Sir very loosely)
Your trouble is that you are quite happy to believe tosh put ut by the NAO, who I would suggest is part of the government? Do you think they would own up to being undermanned?
I would suggest that you take a long hard look, and then tell me and the others here that we are not (at least) seriously undermanned. Have you seen the front lines of the RAF and the Army? Cant really speak for the RN but I've no reason to think they are any different.
As for your comments about paying the motgage lark - that pretty much epitomises all that is bad in todays Officer corps, and as others have said, you should be ashamed of yourself.
TSM

[Widger]

Vecvec (totalwar). This time you have really surpassed yourself! Your comments offend me and many others, that I know think about their people first.

This comment really puts into context so many of your other ill-considered posts. I agree...you should be ashamed of yourself!

[Winco]

VecVec whatever,

I have no idea of your current rank, but whatever it is, you are unworthy of it. As a retired Wg Cdr I am ashamed that a fellow officer is prepared to display such a disgraceful attitude to the world. You are an utter disgrace to yourself, your service and this country as a whole. How on earth did you slip through the net?

You are nothing short of contemptable, and I too am ashamed of you.
The Winco

[Si Clik]

VVHA,

What a complete T*$T you are. A Naval Squadon relies on the goodwill and discipline of its team of ratings to get the job done. If you don't do your best for them, you will have no aircraft to fly ,or still worse maintenance related incidents/accidents. You reap what you sow!

Since the bag community don't have crewman I am not surprised you are so detached from those who work FOR YOU TO FLY on the shop floor.

Do us all a favour and get out of a job that is clearly well out of your ability.

Si

[tucumseh]

I won’t jump on the bandwagon and condemn Vecvec. In theory everyone has a duty of care toward their colleagues and subordinates. Anyone who has spent a single day in an MoD HQ environment, be they Serviceman or civilian, will know it takes an extremely strong character, or one with nothing to lose, to stand up to the sheer vitriol one experiences if your notion of duty of care in any way conflicts with the political imperative (as it usually does).

I don’t think anyone here needs me to quote examples. You either fight the white, or you don’t. If Vecvec keeps his head down and does a good job, then in my experience he’s in the top 10%. There are plenty who keep down and are completely incompetent. I don’t take his comment literally – it’s just a pragmatic statement and I’m sure he takes his duty toward his men very seriously.

Turning to General Jackson, while I don’t know the man I know some who do, and to a man they were content with his performance and understood the political constraints he worked under. To me, that infers he did speak his mind in private, and honoured his “contract” which required him not to speak in public; and I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He could be accused of dwelling on old arguments which have actually been won, albeit belatedly, but these subjects need to be kept alive, or the Government will renege. The list of approved Army equipment projects designed to improve the lot of the soldier (in the context of the five NATO infantry domains) is quite impressive. What is not impressive is the level of financial commitment we see from the Government. That is, many of these projects are grossly underfunded and completely misunderstood by those with authority that far outstrips their experience or knowledge. I believe the existence of these projects (some huge – FRES, FIST) is largely down to the likes of senior officers like Jackson. Some are VERY politically incorrect, so someone at a very high level has staffed them through. For example, it took a very brave man to endorse a BOWMAN replacement 4 years before the BOWMAN ISD, and require an ISD shortly after BOWMAN rollout is complete! I think the focus should be on the “petty bureaucracy” Jackson talks of. We all know what he means. The mind numbing incompetence witnessed daily in the acquisition system (note, not just procurement). I wonder if he had in mind the project that was delayed for over a month because a sentence in a Business Case was terminated with a double full stop(..)?

[MrBernoulli]

vecvecsmackheadattack's profile suggests Navy (Falmouth) but then that, too, could be bunkum ..... like a lot else of hers here.

[Chugalug2]

I won’t jump on the bandwagon and condemn Vecvec. In theory everyone has a duty of care toward their colleagues and subordinates.
If Vecvec keeps his head down and does a good job, then in my experience he’s in the top 10%. There are plenty who keep down and are completely incompetent. I don’t take his comment literally – it’s just a pragmatic statement and I’m sure he takes his duty toward his men very seriously.

tucu, I've no idea if you are/were a CS or a serving officer. If the former you are mistaken in what you say. If the latter I have almost as much issue with you as Vecvec. A commissioned officer does not have a duty of care to his/her subordinates in theory, but in reality.
Officers who keeps their head down to the detriment of their subordinates are not doing their job, let alone doing a good job! Good bosses go out on a limb for their subordinates, in return for the loyalty they get back. If the limb is sawn off by their superiors they take the rap and start all over. That's the deal. Of course a lot don't measure up to that, they never did. But if no one signs up to that standard you don't have a disciplined force, you have....well the scenario of back stabbing in the corridors of power that you you so ably recount. There is nothing pragmatic about this, if you are commissioned you are required to look out for your subordinates' interests, period!

[Two's in]

Actually, VecVec's post neatly summarizes 3 pages of posts about why Sir Mike didn't make these points while he was serving. It's no good pretending that these people are not out there, it's exactly because of that 'alright Jack" attitude that we are in the mess we are. However unintentional, he hit the nail on the head. The good thing is that so many of you recognized it as an anathema to Service and Officer doctrine, the bad thing is that it is undoubtedly more widespread than you believe. When you are executing the policies of a morally bankrupt Government and Prime Minister, don’t be surprised when Officers begin to pay more attention to their own and their family’s welfare first.

[tucumseh]

Chug

“A commissioned officer does not have a duty of care to his/her subordinates in theory, but in reality”.


I agree but, as I said, reality kicks in when the political imperative is made known. In my experience, the latter takes priority and God help the officer who disagrees. I may not agree with this, but if I refuse to be pragmatic then I have the same choice as the General; put up and resign, or shut up. On two occasions when I put up (by insisting on carrying out my legal Duty, not the political imperative), I was threatened with the sack; by an AVM and a Senior Captain RN. OK, the latter isn’t that senior, but he had the support of a 3*, so my goose was cooked. I had known him as a very good young Lt, but promotion and exposure to politics ruined him. He had a choice; go out on a limb for me (his subordinate) or do what he was told. That is reality and every single person in our Directorate General took note of what happened and adjusted their notion of “Duty” accordingly.

Not everything is black and white. MoD is one big shade of (battleship) grey.

[flipster]

VecVecetc

One would like to think that you might wish to clarify your last post?...um ...as you may have guessed, it does not scan too well!:uhoh: :uhoh:

[Chugalug2]

when I put up (by insisting on carrying out my legal Duty, not the political imperative), I was threatened with the sack; by an AVM and a Senior Captain RN. He had a choice; go out on a limb for me (his subordinate) or do what he was told. That is reality and every single person in our Directorate General took note of what happened and adjusted their notion of “Duty” accordingly.
Not everything is black and white. MoD is one big shade of (battleship) grey.

OK Tuc, I think I have it now, you went out on a limb and took the rap, and your boss didn't. It seems to me then, though not knowing all the facts, that you did your duty as an officer and he didn't. Maybe you sleep sounder than he does at night, I don't know. Put it this way, if the MOD was a battlefield (which from your testimony it would appear to be) and you were wounded doing your duty, but your boss survived unscathed by avoiding danger, his is hardly the reputation one would seek!
The issue re vecvec was in any case not about the hothouse scenario of the MOD but the bog standard duty of care an officer has for his subordinates, especially ORs. We seem to be in agreement about that I think. Your testimony of the corrupting effects of realpolitik on military order and discipline is well taken though, and is perhaps a symptom of the way the chain of command has been "quangoised" over the years. My belief is that such adulterations must be reversed to put commanders in command again.

[Mick Smith]

General Sir Mike Jackson is no poodle. Apart from being terrifyingly ugly, he is hard as nails, and takes $hit from no man. I served under him when he was Comd ARRC/Comd IFOR in Bosnia, and witnessed him rip a 1* a new ar$ehole in front of the entire HQ staff. It was unbelieveably embarrassing for the Brig, nobody knew where to look.


Yes Roadster280 he was happily putting someone subordinate in their place. The man is a classic bully, happy to rap and embarass anyone below him but incapable of taking on anyone above him. If you think that humiliating a 1* in front of junior servicemen and women is the right thing to do, you need to undergo some serious man-management training.

This is a quote from a former mil asst to Jacko: "He loves his image as a hard man. Fair enough, but it appeared to me to be a classic case of a bully – he was always willing to shout at people who could only say ‘yes, sir’ back, but whenever a more senior officer was around he became oleaginously respectful – his pet phrase was actually ‘Yes, Master…’ "

Quite frankly not saying any of this when he was CGS might have been defensible on the basis that it was better to stay in place and try to change things, if it werent for the facts that a: Dannatt did make some serious changes within weeks of taking over - on operational pay, ministers' willingness to talk about withdrawing from Iraq, and military only wards - by not keeping quiet and b) Jackson didnt just keep quiet he repeatedly insisted loudly that everything in the garden was wonderfully rosy and called anyone who even came close to making the very same points he made in his lecture a liar.

[Glass Half Empty]

Ah the perennial problem of a military entity being respectful to the authority of a democracy or being vocal to the point of it becoming a dictatorship - how is Fiji at the moment?

[Mick Smith]

When I last looked I dont think Dannatt was president. I might be wrong but I dont see any comparison between him and his Fijian equivalent. He made his point and kept on doing the job he was paid to do. But having said that as at 1 October 2006 there were 2,055 Fijians in the armed forces, 75 in the RN, 1,975 in the army and even five in the RAF. If one of them ever gets to be CDS we might be in business. ;)

[flipster]

Touche - good riposte MS!!

[The Gorilla]

I have never liked the man or his style of leadership which seems to blend nicely with new labours. Cook and Short didn't bleat until after they had left the front benches either, nice one eh?

He had his chance to stand up and be counted when he was in office and clearly he didn't achieve his potential. And let us not forget fellow Ppruners that this chap was being paid to give the lecture, he's had his 15 minutes and no doubt he will become one of Sky Tv's so called experts thus boosting his huge pension fund still further.

As for vevecthingy, I suspect he is Admin Guru under another name. I suggest we just ignore him and he will go away!
:ugh:

[dwhcomputers]

Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
, I don't know of one military Offcier who is in the mob to
"to care for the wellbeing of the men and women under their command"
Most military Officers I know (and I count myself in this) are in the Mob in order to pay the Mortgage.
evecvechookattack you are exactly the type of Officer that was around as JENGOs in the late 80s that helped me make my mind up to leave after 24yrs service. I can only hope that someone who reads this thread knows who you are and exposes you to your subordinates who will drop you well and truely in the S**t. You are a disgrace to your uniform

[Flatus Veteranus]

There was an interesting item in Broadcasting House (R4) this morning on the apparant growing gulf between military and civilian ethos. (Mike Jackson's "we we" cf. "me me"). An Oxford Professor of Warfare, Prof Straughan (sp?), opined that few people in influential positions in politics and industry/commerce now have any experience of military service, certainly of active service, and that, in this situation it is entirely desireable that senior serving and retired officers should speak out and explain the military viewpoint to the public. He doubts that, if this were done sensibly, the public would feel in any way threatened. I agree (v. my earlier post on our unwritten constitution)

[MrBernoulli]

vecvec has gone deep and silent ..... thank goodness!

[Si Clik]

Vec Vec has gone silent since he only makes posts whilst at work!!!!

Si

[vecvechookattack]

No...Im here...been away for the weekend and just got back onboard....

So, how many of you would serve Queen and country for free then...Go on...hands up all those officers who are in the AFs so that they can serve the men under their command.

Twopack....read the small print shippers....ALL Officers on a PA spine MUST receive an OJAR level D or above in order to receive the next increment level. Therefore, your performance is directly related to your pay...If you perform well then you get a pay rise...if you dont perform well then you don't get a pay rise....thats called performance related pay.


anyway....come on....hands up....all those willing to serve for free so that they can serve the men under their command...

[flipster]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@rse!

[vecvechookattack]

Ah, the humour of the British Tommy.....and it took 17 minutes.
#]////%%%%%

[Exrigger]

OK I'll bite, as one of the men that could have been under your command, and people like you I have to say thanks, you have only confirmed what most SNCOs and ORs have known for the last 20 or so years that your type are what is causing the downfall of the services and why it is the state it is in now. I suppose you will be one of the other ex officers when it is your time who will suddenly find he has a set of B*** and when you have left will all of a suden come over all brave and tell the news papers what it is really like in the services. Oh but by the way it will cost you as I have to supplement my pension and pay for my mortgage.

[Widger]

VecVec, whilst flying around in circles for hours in the back of a Bag, Searchwater has oviously fried your brain!

I suggest that you retrieve the commisioning scroll from your toilet wall, and post it back to Madge, with an apology for having wasted her time signing it.

[Roadster280]

Yes Roadster280 he was happily putting someone subordinate in their place. The man is a classic bully, happy to rap and embarass anyone below him but incapable of taking on anyone above him. If you think that humiliating a 1* in front of junior servicemen and women is the right thing to do, you need to undergo some serious man-management training.
This is a quote from a former mil asst to Jacko: "He loves his image as a hard man. Fair enough, but it appeared to me to be a classic case of a bully – he was always willing to shout at people who could only say ‘yes, sir’ back, but whenever a more senior officer was around he became oleaginously respectful – his pet phrase was actually ‘Yes, Master…’ "
Quite frankly not saying any of this when he was CGS might have been defensible on the basis that it was better to stay in place and try to change things, if it werent for the facts that a: Dannatt did make some serious changes within weeks of taking over - on operational pay, ministers' willingness to talk about withdrawing from Iraq, and military only wards - by not keeping quiet and b) Jackson didnt just keep quiet he repeatedly insisted loudly that everything in the garden was wonderfully rosy and called anyone who even came close to making the very same points he made in his lecture a liar.

OK, fair point. However, rather than a "hats on" in his tent, to just deal with the issue there and then, and be seen to deal with the issue seemed like an effective style. I wasn't aware of his "ego", for want of a better word, that never manifested itself while I worked in his HQ. However, it may well not have at my level (rather a few ranks below Comd ARRC).

I defer to you Sir.

[TMJ]

Twopack....read the small print shippers....ALL Officers on a PA spine MUST receive an OJAR level D or above in order to receive the next increment level. Therefore, your performance is directly related to your pay...If you perform well then you get a pay rise...if you dont perform well then you don't get a pay rise....thats called performance related pay.


Firstly, everyone in all 3 Services must get a satis annual assesment to get a pay rise so your PA point is rather moot. From JSP 754:

03.0403. Yearly increments of pay are awarded to reflect experience and performance in rank. Such Yearly Incremental Progression (YIP) is conditional upon the achievement and maintenance of an acceptable level of performance determined by the annual appraisal process

Secondly, most people wouldn't call that performance related pay, more a punishment for those who aren't meeting the bare minimum standards. Performance related pay would mean getting something over and above your base salary for doing well (eg the theory, if not necessarily the practice, of the CS Bonus Scheme).