Originally Posted by
mr ripley
Having helped write the criteria for an OSM, I believe the key words at the time were 'risk' and 'rigour'
I always understood that the notion of 'risk & rigour' applied to all gongs for operational service, not just the OSM. That said, I still think we are too parsimonious with operational recognition. Given the ever-increasing demands being levied against personnel, I would favour a relaxation of that principle that recognised operational commitment without insisting that personnel had to live face-down in a puddle for months on end, under fire and having worked at least 20 hrs a day just to warrant consideration for thinking an operation is worthy of recognition. Surely more 'minor' cases of operational service should fall under a more general award rather than a fully fledged campaign or award for operational service? There seems to be precious little we can do for personnel these days, medals being one of the few things that hasn't been farmed out and remains within our gift; let's start using that gift a bit more sensibly to reflect demands of operational service.