TA to expel soldiers who won’t go to war
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Stuck Overseas
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the reservist in question is say, RAF Regiment, then it is fair to raise questions about why he is doing that job. If he is say a techie or bluntie then I'm not so sure that it's fair on the bloke to have a pop about his inability to fire a weapon accurately.
Interesting issues about an inability to shoot straight....
On EIRT a few uears ago we had someone who couldn't (or wouldn't???) manage a grouping using a SUSAT, yet I (and everybody else (without boasting, I hasten to add) were getting good groupings at 100/200/300m on iron sights (or SUSAT where issued).
It is not hard to hit a target on a properly zero'd weapon...
Interesting issues about an inability to shoot straight....
On EIRT a few uears ago we had someone who couldn't (or wouldn't???) manage a grouping using a SUSAT, yet I (and everybody else (without boasting, I hasten to add) were getting good groupings at 100/200/300m on iron sights (or SUSAT where issued).
It is not hard to hit a target on a properly zero'd weapon...
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Silsoe - it's possible, but if the case can be made that de-mobbing a TA pilot will mean that a regular pilot can not be deployed, then the TA pilot post(s) may stay. The case is an unusual one.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but - is there any mileage in requiring MOD Civil Servants to have a reserve force commitment as part of their conditions of employment?
A critisism of the CS on many of these threads is for their lack of military knowledge/experience, a bit of TA service may help overcome this. I know some CS do serve in the TA, and in my experience they tend to be pretty good eggs.
A critisism of the CS on many of these threads is for their lack of military knowledge/experience, a bit of TA service may help overcome this. I know some CS do serve in the TA, and in my experience they tend to be pretty good eggs.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TA and RAuxAF units are one thing, but expecting RAFResA and RAFResO personnel to support a 5 year farce of Bliar's making is way outside the scope of the commitment to be reasonably expected from such RAFRes personnel.
PMA have my current address but will not get it if I move in future in case they lose it on a database. In the event of a "real" war then I will know where to turn up...probably!
I did 3 years TA, 1 year RAuxAF and 7 years RAF. The war role of my TA unit (which has been amalgamated at least twice, lost at least two soldiers in Iraq that I know of and won praise and probably some gallantry awards) at the time was rear area defence, and the RAuxAF was supporting JMCs (now force protection, probably with personnel in both theatres).
I observed at the time that Bn exercises usually generated a Coy, planned Coy exes usually generated a Plt etc. There was a distribution of the very committed, the moderately committed and the uncommitted who viewed it as a drinking club (kept on to keep numbers up), probably a standard bell curve. There will always be a proportion that are less keen on deploying, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but these formed an organisational dynamic (particularly for training) that supported the smaller proportion who were keen as mustard. The MoD cannot plan for 100% mobilisation of reservists, it will never happen. Shift the goalposts by all means, introduce further carrots and sticks, weed out the complete wastes-of-space, but if you prune too far the whole thing will collapse.
SBG, do you realise how ridiculous you sound. Poor diddums regular gets a little more shot at because the part timer will not take his place - total bollox, your regular should be ashamed of himself if he is really harbouring those thoughts.
Reality check ......GO
Reality check ......GO
The same argument applies to physical fitness - if the reservist is a fat knacker who likes to go to drill nights but can't deploy: train him, warn him, train him some more, assess him, get rid! (Just like a regular).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe TA and other reserves would be happier to deploy if
1. they had proper training not the 28 days a year to cram in what their regualr counter part does over 365
2. Their civilian careers were PROPERLY protected whilst they deployed. And if they loose their jobs following deployment the Mod will Prosecute the employer and pay the reservist until they find another job.
Personally I beleive it should be made a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss a reservist who is mobilised. with a minimum sentence 5 years for the personel manager and 5 years for the manager who decide this.
BTW reservists only are paid when they attend training.
And as for the Unfit reservists maybe those of you in the regular forces might like to ponder this. Going to the Gym is part of your Job which you get gym facilities and in many cases time to do. For the reservist who also only have 24 hours in a day to fit in work, family and TA going to the Gym may not be as easy to plan in. And of course are the Mod going to pay for their Gym membership???? no are they allowed to use regular forces facilites if they are close by last i heard ofically no.
1. they had proper training not the 28 days a year to cram in what their regualr counter part does over 365
2. Their civilian careers were PROPERLY protected whilst they deployed. And if they loose their jobs following deployment the Mod will Prosecute the employer and pay the reservist until they find another job.
Personally I beleive it should be made a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss a reservist who is mobilised. with a minimum sentence 5 years for the personel manager and 5 years for the manager who decide this.
BTW reservists only are paid when they attend training.
And as for the Unfit reservists maybe those of you in the regular forces might like to ponder this. Going to the Gym is part of your Job which you get gym facilities and in many cases time to do. For the reservist who also only have 24 hours in a day to fit in work, family and TA going to the Gym may not be as easy to plan in. And of course are the Mod going to pay for their Gym membership???? no are they allowed to use regular forces facilites if they are close by last i heard ofically no.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can remember that a gym instructor at Brize was always happy to take Oggies for their fitness test.He always claimed it was the only time any showed any effort to pass and not only just attend.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slightly off topic, but - is there any mileage in requiring MOD Civil Servants to have a reserve force commitment as part of their conditions of employment?
who has had 16 deployments in the past 14 years ..... and another who has been to Basra over 10 times 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It already is an offence to dismiss a reservist if they are called up. However that hasn't been any compulsory mobilisation since 2003 so if you volunteer then i'm not so sure that you have the same protection.
Plus we are allowed to use the gym at Chilwell FOC. Its just a case of finding the right person to ask!
Plus we are allowed to use the gym at Chilwell FOC. Its just a case of finding the right person to ask!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil Service and Reserve Commitment
A goodly proportion of MoD Civil Servants are ex regulars and probably have a reserve commitment, but serious Snivel Serpents - I really cant see it! It's a bit like the 'bring back National Service', why lumber the regulars with people who dont want to be doing the job!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ducati,
Somewhat off topic, but I think we need to be a bit careful here. All mobilisations are compulsory, and have the employment guarantee. However, the forces are now using something called "smart mobilisation" (better than the dumb equivalent, presumably) that in effect asks employees to ask their employers if it would be ok to mobilise them.
Now I'm sure that if you're sitting behind some comfy desk, Capt Darling, that this is a sensible, rational idea.
However, it is in fact the most ridiculous idea in recent memory in the reserves, as it says to many (and not all unscrupulous) bosses:
(a) my guy knows about this, and probable has for some time;
(b) therefore probably volunteered, but certainly didn't oppose it, suggesting that s/he isn't very committed to me this job or the company;
and
(c) if I sack / move sideways this person now before they are called up on another convenient pretext, I can escape the employment protection clauses of the the Reserve Forces Act.
(To all the lawyers out there - c has happened, but how would you ever prove it?
)
Which is why no-one I know has ever had the conversation with their employers. It's all a MASSIVE surprise when the brown envelope hits the mat.
At which point the individual has to have the "it's compulsory like what it says here and I can't get out of it so here are the dates that I'm going to have to go, terribly sorry, see you in six months, bye" conversation.
So to make this system work, you in effect need most of your reservists to mislead their employers. And we wonder why employers aren't always madly keen on the reserve forces?
S41
Somewhat off topic, but I think we need to be a bit careful here. All mobilisations are compulsory, and have the employment guarantee. However, the forces are now using something called "smart mobilisation" (better than the dumb equivalent, presumably) that in effect asks employees to ask their employers if it would be ok to mobilise them.
Now I'm sure that if you're sitting behind some comfy desk, Capt Darling, that this is a sensible, rational idea.
However, it is in fact the most ridiculous idea in recent memory in the reserves, as it says to many (and not all unscrupulous) bosses: (a) my guy knows about this, and probable has for some time;
(b) therefore probably volunteered, but certainly didn't oppose it, suggesting that s/he isn't very committed to me this job or the company;
and
(c) if I sack / move sideways this person now before they are called up on another convenient pretext, I can escape the employment protection clauses of the the Reserve Forces Act.
(To all the lawyers out there - c has happened, but how would you ever prove it?
)Which is why no-one I know has ever had the conversation with their employers. It's all a MASSIVE surprise when the brown envelope hits the mat.
At which point the individual has to have the "it's compulsory like what it says here and I can't get out of it so here are the dates that I'm going to have to go, terribly sorry, see you in six months, bye" conversation.
So to make this system work, you in effect need most of your reservists to mislead their employers.
And we wonder why employers aren't always madly keen on the reserve forces? S41
"Slightly off topic, but - is there any mileage in requiring MOD Civil Servants to have a reserve force commitment as part of their conditions of employment? "
I'm a CS and a reservist, as are many of my colleagues. The idea of making every CS a reservist is pointless - impossible to implement, would be a recruiting nightmare and many people would probably quit. Also, contrary to popular belief most CS do actually have a post that needs filling - call them up en masse and there goes procurement, logistics, policy, intelligence, support etc.
Don't forget that hundreds of MOD CS do serve overseas on tours anyway in a wide range of roles. Its been made clear that unless you deploy, your career prospects will suffer.
I'm a CS and a reservist, as are many of my colleagues. The idea of making every CS a reservist is pointless - impossible to implement, would be a recruiting nightmare and many people would probably quit. Also, contrary to popular belief most CS do actually have a post that needs filling - call them up en masse and there goes procurement, logistics, policy, intelligence, support etc.
Don't forget that hundreds of MOD CS do serve overseas on tours anyway in a wide range of roles. Its been made clear that unless you deploy, your career prospects will suffer.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to be on a thread where I find myself agreeing with NURSE. Reservists are people, not just a resource. If we're going to make compulsory deployments a term of their service in the way the article suggests, we're going to have to look after them a whole heap better. That means proper employment protection and welfare as well as giving them the facilities to train.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't an offence it is grounds for an unfair dismissal hearing and many of the people i know in NHS who have been dismissed know as soon as they go to an industrial tribuneral they can kiss good bye to working in NHS again.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an EX RAF person who left after 25 years because of the wrong wars Blair wanted to fight I stand by every TA person who wants not to be killed or have their legs blown off by a road side IED.
Stand up Guy's. look after number 1, your wife and kids the Bush and Blair war is over so stay at home.
B lox to these stupid wars of Bush and Blair.
Stand up Guy's. look after number 1, your wife and kids the Bush and Blair war is over so stay at home.
B lox to these stupid wars of Bush and Blair.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then Blogger the answer is to leave the TA,
not to remain in and cherry pick which wars you intend to take part in.
For all those blasting employers, perhaps you might consider this -
as an employer you now have to take somebody on to cover the work not being done by your TA member of staff. This is bound, I would think, to make TA personnel at least a little less than attractive to a potential employer. If your employer were compensated adequately, and protected by the government who wanted you to go work for them, I doubt the problems you encounter would still exist.
I'm not arguing that jobs shouldn't be protected, or that TA ought not to be able to go on ops - but the root cause of the problem is the refusal of the government to actually ensure that the employer doesn't end up bearing the actual cost of your deployment...if the government want you to deploy, then they should damn well pay for it. Businesses pay enough tax, and spend enough fruitless hours filling in endless bumph - to expect them to subsidise ill thought out military adventures is simply taking the p*$$. Our government, as usual, are simply trying to shift the cost and aggro onto someone else.
I ought to add that I am not an employer, and I enjoyed working alongside oggies for a number of years before retirement - it's the cynical way the government manage to shift the blame for things that gets my goat!
Dave
not to remain in and cherry pick which wars you intend to take part in.
For all those blasting employers, perhaps you might consider this -
as an employer you now have to take somebody on to cover the work not being done by your TA member of staff. This is bound, I would think, to make TA personnel at least a little less than attractive to a potential employer. If your employer were compensated adequately, and protected by the government who wanted you to go work for them, I doubt the problems you encounter would still exist.
I'm not arguing that jobs shouldn't be protected, or that TA ought not to be able to go on ops - but the root cause of the problem is the refusal of the government to actually ensure that the employer doesn't end up bearing the actual cost of your deployment...if the government want you to deploy, then they should damn well pay for it. Businesses pay enough tax, and spend enough fruitless hours filling in endless bumph - to expect them to subsidise ill thought out military adventures is simply taking the p*$$. Our government, as usual, are simply trying to shift the cost and aggro onto someone else.
I ought to add that I am not an employer, and I enjoyed working alongside oggies for a number of years before retirement - it's the cynical way the government manage to shift the blame for things that gets my goat!
Dave