Military Job cuts AGAIN
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Scotsman, reliable user of PPrune!
Commanders warn all ranks to silence dissent in public
JAMES KIRKUP and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
MEMBERS of the armed forces have been warned they face harsh punishment if they publicly speak of their anger at yesterday’s defence cuts.
The Scotsman understands that army chiefs have written to the commanding officers of all six Scottish regiments to warn them that public displays of discontent will not be tolerated.
And lower down the chain of command, officers and men have been left in no doubt that there will be severe consequences for anyone who communicates complaints about the cuts to the media, even anonymously. "Some of our more sensitive friends threatened all sorts of bad things," said one serviceman, referring to those responsible for military discipline.
Punishments could include "administrative action and a nasty letter or interview without coffee," a reference to a formal disciplinary meeting with superior officers.
Queen’s Regulations forbid serving personnel from speaking to the media without authorisation, and traditionally, members of the forces have relied on retired officers and regimental associations to communicate their thoughts to the wider world.
But some serving officers have expressed unhappiness at the way the "traditional" system has worked during the debate over yesterday’s cuts, and are considering more dramatic steps including a open letter-writing campaign to newspapers.
Another protest being discussed last night was to use so-called "redress" rules within Queen’s Regulations that allow service personnel to ask formally for commanding officers to express their concerns to the Defence Board, the highest body in the UK armed forces which is chaired by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.
The prospect of serving officers speaking out against the cuts may put at least one Labour MP in an awkward position.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk West, left the army in 1999 after being disciplined for publicly criticising military management.
He has been one of the most outspoken advocates of yesterday’s modernisation plans on the Labour back-benches.
Some serving forces personnel regularly use internet message boards and other electronic forums to discuss military developments, and tip off reporters about them.
But there are indications that military police investigators have taken to monitoring the boards and are trying to trace the identities of those responsible for potentially controversial messages.
Such moves have left some members of the armed forces feeling even more disaffected.
"Unlike the rest of the human race which enjoys the protection of the law of the land, the military still has various internal kangaroo court processes to hang people out to dry," said one disgruntled serviceman yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, acknowledged that there would be discontent, particular among Scottish servicemen and women.
"I’m sure they will not all be happy," he told The Scotsman.
And in an remarkable display of how the language of modern management has even penetrated the upper echelons of the military, the former paratrooper pledged to work to soften the blow and "help them through the emotional change barrier."
The general refused to discuss the attempt to gag service personnel, but left no doubt that he would take a dim view of anyone found communicating with the media.
"There are rules about serving personnel talking to the press," he said. "Rules are rules. The army is not a democracy."
The only "emotional change barrier" I transcend is the incandescent rage I feel whenever I see Buff Hoon on TV and want to throw a brick at it!
And the army (armed forces) is not a democracy...if it was there would be a landslide change of government! Bring back Sir Jock Slater who at least had the b@lls to contradict the politicians who know nothing about the Service ethos and care less!
Please continue quoting, o journos! And you had better line a job up for me if I get caught!!!
Not that I particularly care anymore!
Commanders warn all ranks to silence dissent in public
JAMES KIRKUP and GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
MEMBERS of the armed forces have been warned they face harsh punishment if they publicly speak of their anger at yesterday’s defence cuts.
The Scotsman understands that army chiefs have written to the commanding officers of all six Scottish regiments to warn them that public displays of discontent will not be tolerated.
And lower down the chain of command, officers and men have been left in no doubt that there will be severe consequences for anyone who communicates complaints about the cuts to the media, even anonymously. "Some of our more sensitive friends threatened all sorts of bad things," said one serviceman, referring to those responsible for military discipline.
Punishments could include "administrative action and a nasty letter or interview without coffee," a reference to a formal disciplinary meeting with superior officers.
Queen’s Regulations forbid serving personnel from speaking to the media without authorisation, and traditionally, members of the forces have relied on retired officers and regimental associations to communicate their thoughts to the wider world.
But some serving officers have expressed unhappiness at the way the "traditional" system has worked during the debate over yesterday’s cuts, and are considering more dramatic steps including a open letter-writing campaign to newspapers.
Another protest being discussed last night was to use so-called "redress" rules within Queen’s Regulations that allow service personnel to ask formally for commanding officers to express their concerns to the Defence Board, the highest body in the UK armed forces which is chaired by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary.
The prospect of serving officers speaking out against the cuts may put at least one Labour MP in an awkward position.
Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk West, left the army in 1999 after being disciplined for publicly criticising military management.
He has been one of the most outspoken advocates of yesterday’s modernisation plans on the Labour back-benches.
Some serving forces personnel regularly use internet message boards and other electronic forums to discuss military developments, and tip off reporters about them.
But there are indications that military police investigators have taken to monitoring the boards and are trying to trace the identities of those responsible for potentially controversial messages.
Such moves have left some members of the armed forces feeling even more disaffected.
"Unlike the rest of the human race which enjoys the protection of the law of the land, the military still has various internal kangaroo court processes to hang people out to dry," said one disgruntled serviceman yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, acknowledged that there would be discontent, particular among Scottish servicemen and women.
"I’m sure they will not all be happy," he told The Scotsman.
And in an remarkable display of how the language of modern management has even penetrated the upper echelons of the military, the former paratrooper pledged to work to soften the blow and "help them through the emotional change barrier."
The general refused to discuss the attempt to gag service personnel, but left no doubt that he would take a dim view of anyone found communicating with the media.
"There are rules about serving personnel talking to the press," he said. "Rules are rules. The army is not a democracy."
The only "emotional change barrier" I transcend is the incandescent rage I feel whenever I see Buff Hoon on TV and want to throw a brick at it!
And the army (armed forces) is not a democracy...if it was there would be a landslide change of government! Bring back Sir Jock Slater who at least had the b@lls to contradict the politicians who know nothing about the Service ethos and care less!
Please continue quoting, o journos! And you had better line a job up for me if I get caught!!!
Not that I particularly care anymore!
pr00ne
Perhaps they are paying off the T23's rather than more T42's so as to retain a balanced force, you know, capable of more than just one task.
That was my point. The T23 is more flexible (equipped with sensor and weapons for dealing with surface, submarine and air threats, wheras the T42 is basically a platform for Sea Dart and can only really function in an anti air role. It has no anti submarine weapons (other than the Lynx it carries - can't carry two of them or a Merlin), and no dedicated anti ship missiles.
As for air defence of the UK during the Cold War, I agree. But that was then and this is now.
Perhaps they are paying off the T23's rather than more T42's so as to retain a balanced force, you know, capable of more than just one task.
That was my point. The T23 is more flexible (equipped with sensor and weapons for dealing with surface, submarine and air threats, wheras the T42 is basically a platform for Sea Dart and can only really function in an anti air role. It has no anti submarine weapons (other than the Lynx it carries - can't carry two of them or a Merlin), and no dedicated anti ship missiles.
As for air defence of the UK during the Cold War, I agree. But that was then and this is now.
Dear Jockistaniman Journo,
The quote you claim to have come from a 'disgruntled serviceman', did not. It came from a civilian who retired prematurely from the Armed Forces last year having served for 35 years when the scale of the Treasury-driven downward spiral into mediocracy became so blindingly obvious! It was nothing to do with BuffHoon's defence cuts, it was to warn people NOT to attempt to make direct contact with chip-wrapper scibblers.
One deep-fried Mars Bar too many, perhaps?
Which is why you should NEVER trust a journo to get his facts right about the Armed Services!
(Edited to add: Except for specialists, of course, Jacko!)
But if you want a scoop, 'twas I who first coined the term BuffHoon!
The quote you claim to have come from a 'disgruntled serviceman', did not. It came from a civilian who retired prematurely from the Armed Forces last year having served for 35 years when the scale of the Treasury-driven downward spiral into mediocracy became so blindingly obvious! It was nothing to do with BuffHoon's defence cuts, it was to warn people NOT to attempt to make direct contact with chip-wrapper scibblers.
One deep-fried Mars Bar too many, perhaps?
Which is why you should NEVER trust a journo to get his facts right about the Armed Services!
(Edited to add: Except for specialists, of course, Jacko!)
But if you want a scoop, 'twas I who first coined the term BuffHoon!
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Jul 2004 at 15:14.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From EHRA 98 Article 8(1)
Note the latter "correspondence" part. Post away, o posters, if anyone tries to "do you over", see 'em in Strasbourg!
Everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence
Whereas private correspondence to a so-called colleague leaked and used against you is .........??
Dream on if you think that you've got any democratic rights.
Dream on if you think that you've got any democratic rights.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is all part of a bigger plan to let France invade the UK.
Think about it, better food, wine, etc. A sense of style and flair. No worries about the franc now, as we will end up with the Euro anyway. It really does make a lot of sense.
Of course, they would forget about the Isle of Man, as the Romans did, and we can continue to languish in no tax.
It really does make sense, the more you think about it. And we thought Options for Change was bad!
Think about it, better food, wine, etc. A sense of style and flair. No worries about the franc now, as we will end up with the Euro anyway. It really does make a lot of sense.
Of course, they would forget about the Isle of Man, as the Romans did, and we can continue to languish in no tax.
It really does make sense, the more you think about it. And we thought Options for Change was bad!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like the
the jernos are watching this link the SUN i think ,Tom Newton Dunn?
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
the jernos are watching this link the SUN i think ,Tom Newton Dunn?
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE]I think you'd have difficulty trying to prove that 'correspondence' published on a public internet forum was ever meant to be considered private by its author. You're fair game.[/QUOTE]
Not the point, what I put on this website using my pseudonym is my business!!!
Now if I used my name and rank, that is slightly different and I would be identifying myself and perhaps setting myself up.
However, any attempt to link me (the person) with me (the pseudonym) would encroach on my (the person's) right to privacy. But if I attached my (the person's) name to these posts then that is slightly different and I may well be setting myself up in this case.
Do you see what I mean?? If "they" could "do" people advertising their service connections on "swinger" websites (and sometimes appearing in the buff - note, that's not the buff hoon!) they would. But "they" can't, or at least aren't. And I'm not one of those aforementioned, by the way and nor have I viewed any such sites! QRs are neither primary nor secondary statutory legislation (royal prerogative - that's why they are changed so easily), so any claimed derogation from HRA 98 quoting QRs is not worth the paper it is printed on as the aforementioned legislation is required....although it would take a lot of hassle and disproportionate effort to win! I believe the war/crisis opt out stuff is built in to HRA 98 in any case so that doesn't count!
Sorry to be a bore...more slagging off the cuts, please!!
MAke some cuts here.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3918669.stm
A total of £5.3m of taxpayers money was spent on the government\'s spin doctors and ministerial advisers last year.
Tony Blair said that there were 83 paid special advisers across Whitehall some of whom were politically appointees working for ministers.
Downing Street has the most with 28 working for the prime minister.
Chancellor Gordon Brown had four special advisers and five members of the Treasury\'s council of economic advisers are employed on similar terms.
Written reply
The prime minister\'s team had two members in the top pay bracket of £92,213 to £133,628 - most likely to be government relations head Sally Morgan and Downing Street chief of staff Jonathan Powell.
Other Downing Street advisers included experts on economics, health, transport, education, home affairs and Europe.
The £5.3m for 2003/4 included salaries, severance pay and estimated pensions costs.
Mr Blair revealed the information in a House of Commons written answer.
Not the point, what I put on this website using my pseudonym is my business!!!
Now if I used my name and rank, that is slightly different and I would be identifying myself and perhaps setting myself up.However, any attempt to link me (the person) with me (the pseudonym) would encroach on my (the person's) right to privacy. But if I attached my (the person's) name to these posts then that is slightly different and I may well be setting myself up in this case.
Do you see what I mean?? If "they" could "do" people advertising their service connections on "swinger" websites (and sometimes appearing in the buff - note, that's not the buff hoon!) they would. But "they" can't, or at least aren't. And I'm not one of those aforementioned, by the way and nor have I viewed any such sites! QRs are neither primary nor secondary statutory legislation (royal prerogative - that's why they are changed so easily), so any claimed derogation from HRA 98 quoting QRs is not worth the paper it is printed on as the aforementioned legislation is required....although it would take a lot of hassle and disproportionate effort to win! I believe the war/crisis opt out stuff is built in to HRA 98 in any case so that doesn't count!
Sorry to be a bore...more slagging off the cuts, please!!
MAke some cuts here.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3918669.stm
A total of £5.3m of taxpayers money was spent on the government\'s spin doctors and ministerial advisers last year.
Tony Blair said that there were 83 paid special advisers across Whitehall some of whom were politically appointees working for ministers.
Downing Street has the most with 28 working for the prime minister.
Chancellor Gordon Brown had four special advisers and five members of the Treasury\'s council of economic advisers are employed on similar terms.
Written reply
The prime minister\'s team had two members in the top pay bracket of £92,213 to £133,628 - most likely to be government relations head Sally Morgan and Downing Street chief of staff Jonathan Powell.
Other Downing Street advisers included experts on economics, health, transport, education, home affairs and Europe.
The £5.3m for 2003/4 included salaries, severance pay and estimated pensions costs.
Mr Blair revealed the information in a House of Commons written answer.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Far and Away
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of us are there anyway? I believe there should be 52000, but we are undermanned by some 4000 - so are we losing 7000 posts or 11000?
If the Jag Sqns are going, will the Europhiter Geoffhoons take the disbanded Sqn numbers, or displace futher F3 sqns?
Will the Geoffhoon GR1 be as good a compromise from an AD frame as the F2 was from the Fin GR?
Will we buy 3 point tri*s at £30mn per frame, after conversion, or lease Frenchbuses at £30bn over the life of the PFI?
Will Boeing demand their C17s back so they can complete the order to the USAF?
If the Jag Sqns are going, will the Europhiter Geoffhoons take the disbanded Sqn numbers, or displace futher F3 sqns?
Will the Geoffhoon GR1 be as good a compromise from an AD frame as the F2 was from the Fin GR?
Will we buy 3 point tri*s at £30mn per frame, after conversion, or lease Frenchbuses at £30bn over the life of the PFI?
Will Boeing demand their C17s back so they can complete the order to the USAF?
Open Sauce,
Trained established strength is 48900, there are in fact 48500. The 52k figure includes those guys and gals under training.
The 41 figure quoted as the new level is TRAINED STRENGTH.
So I gues the figure can be presented in one of two ways;
A) Reduction in trained strength from 48500 to 41000
or
B) Reduction in total strength from 52200 to 45000.
Either way you are losing between 7200 and 7500 staff by 2008, that is going to hurt which ever way you look at it.
The anounced manpower reduction in the RAF does not seem to add up, the Navy is losing 6 major surface warships and six minor warships and is expected to undergo its share of effeciency savings, yet is only losing 1500?
The RAF is losing 4 Rapier Regt squadrons, between 1 and 4 fast jet squadrons, the Helicopter Maint Flt at St.Mawgan and a few main operating bases, but is losing 7500?
Trained established strength is 48900, there are in fact 48500. The 52k figure includes those guys and gals under training.
The 41 figure quoted as the new level is TRAINED STRENGTH.
So I gues the figure can be presented in one of two ways;
A) Reduction in trained strength from 48500 to 41000
or
B) Reduction in total strength from 52200 to 45000.
Either way you are losing between 7200 and 7500 staff by 2008, that is going to hurt which ever way you look at it.
The anounced manpower reduction in the RAF does not seem to add up, the Navy is losing 6 major surface warships and six minor warships and is expected to undergo its share of effeciency savings, yet is only losing 1500?
The RAF is losing 4 Rapier Regt squadrons, between 1 and 4 fast jet squadrons, the Helicopter Maint Flt at St.Mawgan and a few main operating bases, but is losing 7500?
Last edited by pr00ne; 23rd Jul 2004 at 08:10.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
“The RAF is losing 4 Rapier Regt squadrons, between 1 and 4 fast jet squadrons, the Helicopter Maint Flt at St.Mawgan and a few main operating bases, but is losing 7500?”
HMF at St Mawgan - Says who??
“The RAF is losing 4 Rapier Regt squadrons, between 1 and 4 fast jet squadrons, the Helicopter Maint Flt at St.Mawgan and a few main operating bases, but is losing 7500?”
HMF at St Mawgan - Says who??
extpwron,
Out to civilian tender apparantly when 203(R) sqn move to Valley and the airfield at St.Mawgan closes, not sure if it was in the Statement or mentioned from a Station briefing. Read so much over the last few days that it's all starting to merge.....................
Out to civilian tender apparantly when 203(R) sqn move to Valley and the airfield at St.Mawgan closes, not sure if it was in the Statement or mentioned from a Station briefing. Read so much over the last few days that it's all starting to merge.....................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not sure if the base will close, might be ket for TACEVALs, handed over to the USN or the army or mothballed. The question is what happens to the airfield - runways, ATC, aids etc. It has the locals worried about "Newquay Intl". That will not, apparently, be decided until an airfield review is finished in 2005. Western Morning News
This is Devon
This is Devon
extpwron,
Looks like a done deal to me, I quote;
“Changes will also be introduced in the RAF Search and Rescue (SAR) force where it is planned that the military engineering support will be contractorised.
The future of the airfield itself does appear to be tied up in the Defence airfield review.
I wonder if this means just HMF or if the 6 flights and 203 will ALL go contracted civilian maintenence?
Looks like a done deal to me, I quote;
“Changes will also be introduced in the RAF Search and Rescue (SAR) force where it is planned that the military engineering support will be contractorised.
The future of the airfield itself does appear to be tied up in the Defence airfield review.
I wonder if this means just HMF or if the 6 flights and 203 will ALL go contracted civilian maintenence?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF my bonny lad!
The T42 is a very capable platform for defence in depth with multiple sensors - an ideal Wathdog
The T23 is a bit of a joke - an ASW platform that for years had no Central Command and Control System which meant it couldn't join in the overall punch-up and could just barely defend itself with a couple of peashooters - SeaDart and a 4.5" gun.
Very good for escort duties in the days of the Royal Yacht though, as at it had a a "large paint locker" which could, in the words of their Lordships, be used for "Tiddlying"!!
Love many, trust a few - always paddle your own canoe!!
The T42 is a very capable platform for defence in depth with multiple sensors - an ideal Wathdog
The T23 is a bit of a joke - an ASW platform that for years had no Central Command and Control System which meant it couldn't join in the overall punch-up and could just barely defend itself with a couple of peashooters - SeaDart and a 4.5" gun.
Very good for escort duties in the days of the Royal Yacht though, as at it had a a "large paint locker" which could, in the words of their Lordships, be used for "Tiddlying"!!
Love many, trust a few - always paddle your own canoe!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy 45
I didn't know T23's had Sea Dart 
BTW Any ship used for AD is limited in the LOS coverage limitations of its own sensors. And I would only call those fitted to a T42 one collective layer. So layered defence (aka defence in depth) requires some more layers.
BTW Any ship used for AD is limited in the LOS coverage limitations of its own sensors. And I would only call those fitted to a T42 one collective layer. So layered defence (aka defence in depth) requires some more layers.
So Vertical Launch Sea Wolf (32 missiles ready at any one time, fully autonomous, can engage sea simmers etc, 4nm range) doesn't count?
The topic came on on the Sea Jet thread and my point is/was which would be better protected?
1. CVS (or LPH/LPD), 1 * T42, 1*T23
or
2. CVS, 1*T23, Sea Harrier
All academic now anyway, but I wonder what answers mathemetical modelling would produce......
Personally I think it would be better to have enough Sea Wolf armed frigates to provide extended point defence for every high value unit. Sea Wolf still destroys incoming missiles at a range where they can do little damage. And both T22 and T23 are much better equipped to deal with submarine and surface threats than the T42.
Anyway, supposedly there is no air threat?
The topic came on on the Sea Jet thread and my point is/was which would be better protected?
1. CVS (or LPH/LPD), 1 * T42, 1*T23
or
2. CVS, 1*T23, Sea Harrier
All academic now anyway, but I wonder what answers mathemetical modelling would produce......
Personally I think it would be better to have enough Sea Wolf armed frigates to provide extended point defence for every high value unit. Sea Wolf still destroys incoming missiles at a range where they can do little damage. And both T22 and T23 are much better equipped to deal with submarine and surface threats than the T42.
Anyway, supposedly there is no air threat?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 23rd Jul 2004 at 19:56.