MoD fury as Brown wields axe
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QRs prohibit a number of things: active membership of a trade union, participation in political parties, events, demonstrations. It is a few years since I laid eyes on QRs but I don't think this has changed.
It is possible that the march may foul of the particular regulation. Much of this would be down to the nature of the march: whether it was a "political demonstration" or not. A restrained march focused on some broad key messages could be argued as being non-political. Further digging is needed - I am interested in the circumstances surrounding the Save the Scottish Regiments marches and the Police Federation march.
Note that the-then Min AF, Adam Ingram, conceded in early 2006 that membership of a non-union Federation could not be opposed by the Ministry of Defence as it did not constitute a breach of QRs.
If the march did constitute an acknowledged breach of QRs then further questions would need to be asked:
- would the march succeed with only ex-serving and families? The government message would be that no serving were complaining or marching although this would be difficult to reconcile with a ban.
- would serving personnel be willing to march? I left in 2004 but I was angry enough then to have participated, given the opportunity. Things have become worse since then!
- would disciplinary or administrative action be taken against marchers? My feeling is that this would depend on the likely level of participation and the stance of the government. Such action would be very difficult in the event of mass participation, and also in PR terms - would SIB, RAFP etc be scanning CCTV for images of faces and asking personnel what they did in their off-duty time? It may be viewed as more convenient to turn a blind eye.
- would there be the prospect of a legal challenge or a judicial review of any instruction or order not to participate, under HRA for example? If so, then this is one reason why the blind eye approach may be preferable.
The bottom line is the willingness of serving personnel to participate. This is very much an individual decision with a lot of factors to weigh up. Is the situation so dire - with no prospect of improvement, only further decline - that such a radical step is appropriate, indeed necessary? How does this fit with centuries of tradition? Is inaction worse than action? These are questions that only the individual can answer.
It is possible that the march may foul of the particular regulation. Much of this would be down to the nature of the march: whether it was a "political demonstration" or not. A restrained march focused on some broad key messages could be argued as being non-political. Further digging is needed - I am interested in the circumstances surrounding the Save the Scottish Regiments marches and the Police Federation march.
Note that the-then Min AF, Adam Ingram, conceded in early 2006 that membership of a non-union Federation could not be opposed by the Ministry of Defence as it did not constitute a breach of QRs.
If the march did constitute an acknowledged breach of QRs then further questions would need to be asked:
- would the march succeed with only ex-serving and families? The government message would be that no serving were complaining or marching although this would be difficult to reconcile with a ban.
- would serving personnel be willing to march? I left in 2004 but I was angry enough then to have participated, given the opportunity. Things have become worse since then!
- would disciplinary or administrative action be taken against marchers? My feeling is that this would depend on the likely level of participation and the stance of the government. Such action would be very difficult in the event of mass participation, and also in PR terms - would SIB, RAFP etc be scanning CCTV for images of faces and asking personnel what they did in their off-duty time? It may be viewed as more convenient to turn a blind eye.
- would there be the prospect of a legal challenge or a judicial review of any instruction or order not to participate, under HRA for example? If so, then this is one reason why the blind eye approach may be preferable.
The bottom line is the willingness of serving personnel to participate. This is very much an individual decision with a lot of factors to weigh up. Is the situation so dire - with no prospect of improvement, only further decline - that such a radical step is appropriate, indeed necessary? How does this fit with centuries of tradition? Is inaction worse than action? These are questions that only the individual can answer.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just my opinion as a humble civvie. Firstly, i think defence spending comes pretty low on the list when you ask joe public about their main concerns for the country (so it isn't really an election winner). The public's concern (and anger) about being heavily involved in Iraq seems to be more of a question of whether it was illegal or not, rather than troops being killed or a lack of equipment.
Previous Labour heavy defence cuts happened when the economy was strong and buoyant, so i dread to think what future defence cuts are going to be like when you consider the economy is looking fragile and nervous (i think a lot of stealth cuts could be on the cards). What would lose the Government more votes: closing a few a&e wards or scraping a few tornado squadrons (doubt the latter would even make the local paper)? Also, the welfare budget is going through the roof and someone has just used my money to buy a bank i didn't want (me,me).
We still seem to live in a "me, me" country where if it doesn't effect No.1 then i don't really care.
I really think that we are at the beginning of the end in being heavily involved at the cutting edge in wars like Afghanistan, etc. I'm sure we will start to slowly turn around into a more French and German way of doing things through NATO, rather than being little brother to the US, when the time arises...e.g not straying into southern Afghanistan and not committing too much. Even more reason to cut back.
Previous Labour heavy defence cuts happened when the economy was strong and buoyant, so i dread to think what future defence cuts are going to be like when you consider the economy is looking fragile and nervous (i think a lot of stealth cuts could be on the cards). What would lose the Government more votes: closing a few a&e wards or scraping a few tornado squadrons (doubt the latter would even make the local paper)? Also, the welfare budget is going through the roof and someone has just used my money to buy a bank i didn't want (me,me).
We still seem to live in a "me, me" country where if it doesn't effect No.1 then i don't really care.
I really think that we are at the beginning of the end in being heavily involved at the cutting edge in wars like Afghanistan, etc. I'm sure we will start to slowly turn around into a more French and German way of doing things through NATO, rather than being little brother to the US, when the time arises...e.g not straying into southern Afghanistan and not committing too much. Even more reason to cut back.
You may well be right casino335, but that is not what this angst is about. What the Armed Forces need, and should be getting, is proper manpower and equipment for the tasking set them by HMG via MOD. They are not getting anything like that. It has got to the point where it is costing lives, even when the enemy are not involved. By all means cut back commitments and trim defence capability accordingly, but in the meantime you can't get a quart out of a pint pot. The government and especially the MOD is dysfunctional, the worse case scenario is that they will visit their dysfunction onto the Services. We cannot be far from that point now and urgent action is needed to avoid a calamity. That is why we must protest, that is why the CoSs must protest. It is our duty, it is their duty.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i agree with what you are saying Chugalug. In a perfect world our armed forces should be given a blank cheque, thou in a prefect world you shouldn't need armed forces.
Hasn't it historically always been the case that our armed forces are short changed and left to "make do"? I could be totally wrong here but didn't a MP called (i think) John Knott decommission the RN's "proper" carriers just before the Falklands war: the type of operation/conflict they were designed for?
I think what i'm trying to say is i can't see hundreds of thousands of members of the public, or members of the forces protesting down in London about poor equipment, manpower levels or any other armed forces related issue unless it involved (so-called) illegally going to war with another country.
Hasn't it historically always been the case that our armed forces are short changed and left to "make do"? I could be totally wrong here but didn't a MP called (i think) John Knott decommission the RN's "proper" carriers just before the Falklands war: the type of operation/conflict they were designed for?
I think what i'm trying to say is i can't see hundreds of thousands of members of the public, or members of the forces protesting down in London about poor equipment, manpower levels or any other armed forces related issue unless it involved (so-called) illegally going to war with another country.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This civvy has just signed the petition. Well done Chappie. As Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel said........er....sang....Dont give up !
(Me thinks most if not all on the forum support you.)
No one should get a blank cheque from the taxpayer, casino335, but he should pay for the cost of what his government calls on the men and women of the Armed Forces to do on his behalf. It's the military covenant we hear so much about and it's been broken according to the British Legion, amongst others. You don't get to pick and choose the wars you pay for, they don't get to pick and choose the wars they fight. They may be volunteers, but once attestated they are subject to military law until released from service. They are fully aware of their obligations, I fear that this government, and a substantial part of the citizenry, are not.
> but he should pay for the cost of what his government calls on the men and
> women of the Armed Forces to do on his behalf.
Point of order.
Obviously, if people are going to be asked to do this work, they should be properly funded. Lack of foam in Herc tanks etc a daft state of affairs. No argument.
But. Certainly with regard to Iraq, you need to be very careful about claiming that it's being done on Joe Public's behalf, because in many cases Joe Public objected very much to it being done and would not want it done in his name. You can't legitimately play to someone's sense of duty under these circumstances.
Much more I could say but am conscious of causing gratuitous offence; suffice to say that I'd much rather nobody got killed, be they UK service personnel or some middle-eastern farmer's son who's spent his life being indoctrinated and miliatrised by the culture he grew up in.
Phil
> women of the Armed Forces to do on his behalf.
Point of order.
Obviously, if people are going to be asked to do this work, they should be properly funded. Lack of foam in Herc tanks etc a daft state of affairs. No argument.
But. Certainly with regard to Iraq, you need to be very careful about claiming that it's being done on Joe Public's behalf, because in many cases Joe Public objected very much to it being done and would not want it done in his name. You can't legitimately play to someone's sense of duty under these circumstances.
Much more I could say but am conscious of causing gratuitous offence; suffice to say that I'd much rather nobody got killed, be they UK service personnel or some middle-eastern farmer's son who's spent his life being indoctrinated and miliatrised by the culture he grew up in.
Phil
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casino
You have hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately that seems to be the answer as far as the vast majority of Joe Public is concerned. If we were to fall back like the rest of NATO then how much longer would the American public carry on supporting it as an organisation, why should they? If that were the case we would be forced into an ineffective European Organisation that wouldn't agree on anything. Each nation to its own agenda, just look at Kosovo where the French provaracated, sent a force, and then failed to support when the crunch came forcing a stand-off with the Russians over Pristina Airfield. Lets face it without the US it just wouldn't work. We can't agree on issues within the the EEC or whatever they want to call it now so how are we ever going to agree over which war to fight. Maybe the answer is a Unified Europe led by one decisive parliament with a strong leader
Shudder the thought....
Phil-R
Of course Iraq was done on Joe Public's behalf! Our democratically elected government sent us there, government has to make tough decisions and the public can't be expected to have a say all of the time, true democracy will not work. Also the public need to be told the truths occasionally and not just hoodwinked by spin. Iraq was not only a tactical move to remove a thorn in the side but a strategic move in an attempt to secure a more peaceful Middle East and hence a more stable oil supply, just as it was in the 1940's. It may also have been a thinly disguised cover to put further military pressure on the growing threat from Iran, they must now feel very threatened with coalition (US) forces virtually on all sides.
Sometimes a government's job is not always acceptable to the public. It is only by intelligent explaination and engagement with the public that you will fully get its support. Not the bull$£!t of spin that most intellectual people see through straight away. Unfortunately once spun the web of deceipt stays with you.
I really think that we are at the beginning of the end in being heavily involved at the cutting edge in wars like Afghanistan, etc. I'm sure we will start to slowly turn around into a more French and German way of doing things through NATO, rather than being little brother to the US, when the time arises...e.g not straying into southern Afghanistan and not committing too much. Even more reason to cut back.
Shudder the thought....Phil-R
Of course Iraq was done on Joe Public's behalf! Our democratically elected government sent us there, government has to make tough decisions and the public can't be expected to have a say all of the time, true democracy will not work. Also the public need to be told the truths occasionally and not just hoodwinked by spin. Iraq was not only a tactical move to remove a thorn in the side but a strategic move in an attempt to secure a more peaceful Middle East and hence a more stable oil supply, just as it was in the 1940's. It may also have been a thinly disguised cover to put further military pressure on the growing threat from Iran, they must now feel very threatened with coalition (US) forces virtually on all sides.
Sometimes a government's job is not always acceptable to the public. It is only by intelligent explaination and engagement with the public that you will fully get its support. Not the bull$£!t of spin that most intellectual people see through straight away. Unfortunately once spun the web of deceipt stays with you.
Certainly with regard to Iraq, you need to be very careful about claiming that it's being done on Joe Public's behalf, because in many cases Joe Public objected very much to it being done and would not want it done in his name.
Yes I was, yes he did, bad luck because it was. Forking out taxes for what you object to is the very crux of how democracy works. Protesting your objection is your inalienable right, paying the taxes is your inalienable duty. Condemning the government for said decisions likewise your privilege, being indifferent to those who are duty bound to carry them out is callow and short sighted. Without them, the problems will be soon on your doorstep big time, and you would be on your own!
The main thrust of the argument being presented here would seem to be that I am required to have faith in the government simply on the basis of the process which put them in power, regardless of who I voted for or what my opinions are. If that is your interpretation of how a democracy works, then let us just say that I fundamentally disagree; you cannot claim to be undertaking something "on my behalf" without my approval.
I don't want to get drawn off into an analysis of the whole "oil war" thing other than to say that I reject your thesis on the intentions for it entirely. It has made it far harder politically to threaten Iran on the basis that a similar campaign in Iraq has been such a gigantic cluster****.
But the point here is not why it's believed to be a bad idea, it's simply that it is believed to be a bad idea, for some pretty good reasons. If you expect people people to unwaveringly support wrongheaded policy on the basis of a hale devotion to parliamentary democracy, you are doomed to disappointment.
On the upside think of the situation you'd be in with all these cuts happening and no current deployments to argue with.
I don't want to get drawn off into an analysis of the whole "oil war" thing other than to say that I reject your thesis on the intentions for it entirely. It has made it far harder politically to threaten Iran on the basis that a similar campaign in Iraq has been such a gigantic cluster****.
But the point here is not why it's believed to be a bad idea, it's simply that it is believed to be a bad idea, for some pretty good reasons. If you expect people people to unwaveringly support wrongheaded policy on the basis of a hale devotion to parliamentary democracy, you are doomed to disappointment.
On the upside think of the situation you'd be in with all these cuts happening and no current deployments to argue with.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil R
Nav, and Chugalug have got it right, I am afraid you have got it wrong. How an earth can you expect to have your say and be listened to on every item of government expenditure, across all public departments?? As has been said these (idiots) are the democratically elected idiots, that we idiots voted in. There is no need to be careful about which conflict we discuss. If we as a nation send our troops in to harms way, then they should be provided with the equipment and medical back up to do the job as safely as is possible under those conditions. The troops should not be spending around 1000 pounds on average, kitting themselves out to do the job we send them to do. It is nothing to do with blank cheques, it is to do with resourcing the job correctly.
Certainly with regard to Iraq, you need to be very careful about claiming that it's being done on Joe Public's behalf, because in many cases Joe Public objected very much to it being done and would not want it done in his name.
Tigs, I completely agree that under-funding these operations is madness. And yes, it is one of the greatest faults of democracy that it puts power in the hands of the winners of a rather childish popularity contest. It's particularly reprehensible that people are using the armed forces for political ends, then refusing to fund them properly, also for political ends. Despicable behaviour.
All I'm saying is that if you want to garner support for this sort of thing, don't go down the "we're doing it on your behalf" route because by doing that, you give the appearance of aligning yourself with those political powers, who tend to say similar things.
P
All I'm saying is that if you want to garner support for this sort of thing, don't go down the "we're doing it on your behalf" route because by doing that, you give the appearance of aligning yourself with those political powers, who tend to say similar things.
P
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cambridge/Cambodia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs2,
I think Phil's point is a march through the middle of London, by a military complaining of poor treatment, will have as much resonance with the city's population as the countryside alliance march did - little or none. This is especially the case when there is such opposition to the war, Joe tax-payer is being asked to foot the bill, and compounded by visible multi-billion pound procurements (Typhoon, Trident replacement, Astute, etc) amongst general wastage in the MoD....I hope you can see why Joe Public might be less than sympathetic to claims of underfunding, or confident that added expenditure will be spent where it is needed.
The public itself isn't innately indifferent to the military I don't think, but the military and the public have had a wedge driven between them by a government decision to go into an unpopular and unnecessary war. It should also be noted that any indifference that does exist is, as always, pretty well reciprocated by the military towards the public - the nature of this particular conflict is utterly divisive.
Likewise, the claim that Iraq is occurring on "the behalf" of Joe Public is simply not true. Democracy is more than a vote every four years - it is the ability to oppose and influence government at any point during those fours years. It is undoubtedly the case that a massive proportion of the population, particularly in places like London, stridently opposed our entry in to the Iraq war and were forthright in vocalising that opposition - to deaf ears. Now that we're are engaged in the war they opposed, it becomes somewhat difficult to switch from vehement opposition to pro-actively supporting increased expenditure on such a conflict. From a slightly cynical perspective, this is likely to be seen by the public as a thin end of the wedge - war justifies increased expenditure, increasing the military budget and influence at a time when the military is seen to be acting against the wishes of the public. The military itself can only be muted in the run-up to war which further entrenches this perspective.
The correct (but impractical) course of action would be a blank cheque, one written by those who supported the war in the first place as I suspect they were the ones who though they would either profit from or suffer little from the decision to go to war.
Out of interest, where would you best propose any increased funding come from? Increased taxation? Cutbacks? Or the MoD getting its priorities right with the resources it currently holds?
Nav Attacking,
The rationale you give for the war, whether valid or not, does not make the war in the interests of of Joe Public, for the very reason that much of the public opposition was to the very reasons you use as justifications.
I think Phil's point is a march through the middle of London, by a military complaining of poor treatment, will have as much resonance with the city's population as the countryside alliance march did - little or none. This is especially the case when there is such opposition to the war, Joe tax-payer is being asked to foot the bill, and compounded by visible multi-billion pound procurements (Typhoon, Trident replacement, Astute, etc) amongst general wastage in the MoD....I hope you can see why Joe Public might be less than sympathetic to claims of underfunding, or confident that added expenditure will be spent where it is needed.
The public itself isn't innately indifferent to the military I don't think, but the military and the public have had a wedge driven between them by a government decision to go into an unpopular and unnecessary war. It should also be noted that any indifference that does exist is, as always, pretty well reciprocated by the military towards the public - the nature of this particular conflict is utterly divisive.
Likewise, the claim that Iraq is occurring on "the behalf" of Joe Public is simply not true. Democracy is more than a vote every four years - it is the ability to oppose and influence government at any point during those fours years. It is undoubtedly the case that a massive proportion of the population, particularly in places like London, stridently opposed our entry in to the Iraq war and were forthright in vocalising that opposition - to deaf ears. Now that we're are engaged in the war they opposed, it becomes somewhat difficult to switch from vehement opposition to pro-actively supporting increased expenditure on such a conflict. From a slightly cynical perspective, this is likely to be seen by the public as a thin end of the wedge - war justifies increased expenditure, increasing the military budget and influence at a time when the military is seen to be acting against the wishes of the public. The military itself can only be muted in the run-up to war which further entrenches this perspective.
The correct (but impractical) course of action would be a blank cheque, one written by those who supported the war in the first place as I suspect they were the ones who though they would either profit from or suffer little from the decision to go to war.
Out of interest, where would you best propose any increased funding come from? Increased taxation? Cutbacks? Or the MoD getting its priorities right with the resources it currently holds?
Nav Attacking,
The rationale you give for the war, whether valid or not, does not make the war in the interests of of Joe Public, for the very reason that much of the public opposition was to the very reasons you use as justifications.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with what Sunray is saying. I've got a sneaky feeling that the MOD/ government with be carrying out any cutbacks (to come) in a stealthy type way - a few squadrons going quietly, etc,etc. I don't think they will have a large defence review, as with the likes with Geoff Hoon, when the RN was hit particularly hard. Also, there are a lot of other countries cutting back too so it isn't an exclusive problem to the UK....e.g... F22 orders around 180 (a lot less than wanted) to replace 675 odd F15 and recent German cutbacks. I guess most people that post on here are ex servicemen/women (or current ones) and i guess defence cuts are seen as a slap in the face, especially when they are doing the job they have been trained for. I also can't see the government cutting any of the other main budgets which aren't exactly in good health (health, education, crime,etc) to bolster spending on defence...e.g...the NHS not issuing certain cancer treatments because they are too expensive -the list goes on and on. Futhermore, at the end of March 07 government debt was £574 billion!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point to note:
The cuts/delays have not yet been decided or announced, so should we holdfire until then at least.
The cuts/delays have not yet been decided or announced, so should we holdfire until then at least.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
I understand your point.
Sunray
I agree with what you are saying. Just to distil my ramblings, let me make my position more simple. In my last rant I was not really comenting on the usefulness of a march. My stance is this , I am totally 100% against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the whys and wherefores do not matter. However, despite my 100% opposition to these conflicts, the fact that we now put our young men and women in harms way to carry out government policy and send them in to theatre without the right equipment is reprehensible. I would go further and say it is criminal. Now that the government has chosen this course of action everything possible must be done in the way of support for our servicemen, an attitude which should be reflected by the public.
As Dan puts even more simply and effectively 'Honour the covenant'.
Guzlin
I don't know but it must be a lot. Just to give an idea. I went to a residents meeting in London a few weeks ago because they were going to shut down Shephards Bush Central Line station till October ( Infact they have done now). They were looking at the installation of two lifts at the station. The cost for this installation is 25 million pounds!! (on a keyboard with no pound sign!)!! Now that strikes me as a lot of body armour, NVGs and armour plated vehicles.
I understand your point.
Sunray
I agree with what you are saying. Just to distil my ramblings, let me make my position more simple. In my last rant I was not really comenting on the usefulness of a march. My stance is this , I am totally 100% against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the whys and wherefores do not matter. However, despite my 100% opposition to these conflicts, the fact that we now put our young men and women in harms way to carry out government policy and send them in to theatre without the right equipment is reprehensible. I would go further and say it is criminal. Now that the government has chosen this course of action everything possible must be done in the way of support for our servicemen, an attitude which should be reflected by the public.
As Dan puts even more simply and effectively 'Honour the covenant'.
Guzlin
I don't know but it must be a lot. Just to give an idea. I went to a residents meeting in London a few weeks ago because they were going to shut down Shephards Bush Central Line station till October ( Infact they have done now). They were looking at the installation of two lifts at the station. The cost for this installation is 25 million pounds!! (on a keyboard with no pound sign!)!! Now that strikes me as a lot of body armour, NVGs and armour plated vehicles.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs,
I was on about the scheme to refurbish the infrastructure of the underground. The dear government wanted to transfer risk to the private sector. It didn't work out and although the consortium that was put together to carry out the work had to pay about £300m after they pulled out of the deal the dear taxpayer is down to loose a figure that goes over a billion. Sorry this is in simple terms but it's late and I've consumed nearly a bottle of Shiraz Cabernet. I'm sure that somebody can fill in the many gaps that I've left but that's the jist of it. Seems to me that the money is there if the government wants it to be.
I was on about the scheme to refurbish the infrastructure of the underground. The dear government wanted to transfer risk to the private sector. It didn't work out and although the consortium that was put together to carry out the work had to pay about £300m after they pulled out of the deal the dear taxpayer is down to loose a figure that goes over a billion. Sorry this is in simple terms but it's late and I've consumed nearly a bottle of Shiraz Cabernet. I'm sure that somebody can fill in the many gaps that I've left but that's the jist of it. Seems to me that the money is there if the government wants it to be.