Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sooms
I think it would take a brave man to stick his head up and, even in 2006, effectively challenge the establishment, although I would bet that he/she would get surreptitious support from 'a few good men' who have made it to the Stars, seen the need, but not wanted to risk their careers.
I've said before that if the Service is clever they could influence the way a Federation is formed, rather than just put up with something that is one day inevitable. With vision (there's some bait) the command chain could positively benefit from a two-way communications structure that could avoid embarrassing newspaper articles and bypass career-obsessed middle managers who fear for their futures were they to report bad news. I can't help thinking some 'stretched and deficiency' new stories are actually welcomed at times by the hierarchy as I doubt they have a great deal of two-way debate with the cabinet.
No matter how we look at the need, we can do business better - our people are being treated consistently badly, be it domestically in the state of Public accommodation, or professionally with ill-conceived fads like IiP et al. We're also locked in an eternal battle of change for the sake of change where some see any change as a qualification for promotion, paying scant regard to longer-term harm after they have gone - we have to arrest that trend! If nothing else a federation could improve communication both ways rather than misunderstanding the issue with U Need 2 Know - I want to know about real issues affecting ME, not read propaganda about helicopter ops at Boscastle. UN2K quickly turned into just another means to transmit RAF News-type stories, losing readership and thus the initiative.
Most command decisions are, I believe, extensively thought out but its clear from the cross-topic posts on Pprune that an intelligent audience is being starved of anything except 'you will now all do A because we say so'. In fact Pprune has been my primary - certainly most consistent, timely and accurate - source of intra-service information for a few years now! We must market ourselves internally too and not just spend with gay abandon on short-term external recruitment programmes that will leave those who fall for it wondering what they've been sold. Today's recruits may initially be fooled, but the magic won't last and they won't stay.
Much as it is easy to criticise 'them', the RAF(TM!) is still made up of a majority of talented individuals who, no matter their misgivings, are keen to get the mission done. But extraneous nonsense is not the mission. Unless we radically assess our organisation as a whole - almost go back to Year One and restructure with the end product the main focus - our primary role will remain 50% harder than it necessarily needs to be. Peripheral activities, introduced by those with vested interests, must not be allowed flourish at the cost of manpower and resources diverted from air operations. When I go - and I'm convinced I have to now - I'll miss the people and their enthusiasm, including the oft-maligned yoof, but worry for their futures.
A federation can say things like this - capture the intangible mood on the streets of our bases - and report back so policy can be developed consultatively when situations allow, reducing the number of occasions that command's well-conceived ideas result in just another session of eye-rolling in workplaces across the UK.
I think it would take a brave man to stick his head up and, even in 2006, effectively challenge the establishment, although I would bet that he/she would get surreptitious support from 'a few good men' who have made it to the Stars, seen the need, but not wanted to risk their careers.
I've said before that if the Service is clever they could influence the way a Federation is formed, rather than just put up with something that is one day inevitable. With vision (there's some bait) the command chain could positively benefit from a two-way communications structure that could avoid embarrassing newspaper articles and bypass career-obsessed middle managers who fear for their futures were they to report bad news. I can't help thinking some 'stretched and deficiency' new stories are actually welcomed at times by the hierarchy as I doubt they have a great deal of two-way debate with the cabinet.
No matter how we look at the need, we can do business better - our people are being treated consistently badly, be it domestically in the state of Public accommodation, or professionally with ill-conceived fads like IiP et al. We're also locked in an eternal battle of change for the sake of change where some see any change as a qualification for promotion, paying scant regard to longer-term harm after they have gone - we have to arrest that trend! If nothing else a federation could improve communication both ways rather than misunderstanding the issue with U Need 2 Know - I want to know about real issues affecting ME, not read propaganda about helicopter ops at Boscastle. UN2K quickly turned into just another means to transmit RAF News-type stories, losing readership and thus the initiative.
Most command decisions are, I believe, extensively thought out but its clear from the cross-topic posts on Pprune that an intelligent audience is being starved of anything except 'you will now all do A because we say so'. In fact Pprune has been my primary - certainly most consistent, timely and accurate - source of intra-service information for a few years now! We must market ourselves internally too and not just spend with gay abandon on short-term external recruitment programmes that will leave those who fall for it wondering what they've been sold. Today's recruits may initially be fooled, but the magic won't last and they won't stay.
Much as it is easy to criticise 'them', the RAF(TM!) is still made up of a majority of talented individuals who, no matter their misgivings, are keen to get the mission done. But extraneous nonsense is not the mission. Unless we radically assess our organisation as a whole - almost go back to Year One and restructure with the end product the main focus - our primary role will remain 50% harder than it necessarily needs to be. Peripheral activities, introduced by those with vested interests, must not be allowed flourish at the cost of manpower and resources diverted from air operations. When I go - and I'm convinced I have to now - I'll miss the people and their enthusiasm, including the oft-maligned yoof, but worry for their futures.
A federation can say things like this - capture the intangible mood on the streets of our bases - and report back so policy can be developed consultatively when situations allow, reducing the number of occasions that command's well-conceived ideas result in just another session of eye-rolling in workplaces across the UK.
Last edited by FOMere2eternity; 27th Jan 2006 at 08:42.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooms
IIRC it happened at Kinloss and Lossie when elements of TG5 where downbanded following a pay review. Again, IIRC there was a spate of 24hr postings.
There is a similar issue now with pay 2000 where a JSJET pay evaluation results in some trades such as FS TG11 being put in the low band and their Sgts in the high. A 2 thou or so pa pay difference. One FS asked me what offence he could commit to get busted as it would mean a huge pay rise.
Then theres the new pension, (see also the thread on PAS,) where the maximum transfer on 6 Apr this year is 35 years. Personnel with more than that behind them have simply lost it.
But a taste of the issues that need addressing by someone, somehow.
IIRC it happened at Kinloss and Lossie when elements of TG5 where downbanded following a pay review. Again, IIRC there was a spate of 24hr postings.
There is a similar issue now with pay 2000 where a JSJET pay evaluation results in some trades such as FS TG11 being put in the low band and their Sgts in the high. A 2 thou or so pa pay difference. One FS asked me what offence he could commit to get busted as it would mean a huge pay rise.
Then theres the new pension, (see also the thread on PAS,) where the maximum transfer on 6 Apr this year is 35 years. Personnel with more than that behind them have simply lost it.
But a taste of the issues that need addressing by someone, somehow.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would the European Courts decide? That EFFECTIVE representation WITHOUT fear of punishment SHOULD be " a basic human right?
Even members of the Armed Forces are still citizens in the end...
Even members of the Armed Forces are still citizens in the end...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see an Armed Forces' MP. Not somebody from the constituency I reside in temporarily, who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in his/her short-term population. Someone with a nationwide responsibility to represent the interests of servicemen/women at Westminster. After all how many of us are now serving in the constituency they voted in at the last election?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One route I have seen used in the past has been the distaff route where hubby can deny all knowledge.
Mountbatten was shafted by a linney's wife at Cottesmore - she contacted the Sun and M had to miss a two-week fishing jolly. Stn Cdr at Cottesmore was livid as he got it in the neck too. Shame
Then kipper fleet Flt Eng's partner managed to get a PQ. Didn't do the chap any good but he built my daughter a rocking horse (no **** major) while waiting for his papers.
And another kipper fleet pilot converted to Shacks. She kicked up a stink but again it made no difference.
In each case it went to the top but only the Sun route worked.
Mountbatten was shafted by a linney's wife at Cottesmore - she contacted the Sun and M had to miss a two-week fishing jolly. Stn Cdr at Cottesmore was livid as he got it in the neck too. Shame
Then kipper fleet Flt Eng's partner managed to get a PQ. Didn't do the chap any good but he built my daughter a rocking horse (no **** major) while waiting for his papers.
And another kipper fleet pilot converted to Shacks. She kicked up a stink but again it made no difference.
In each case it went to the top but only the Sun route worked.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job. If you're really interested look up the records of their proceedings in Hansard or as reported in the better newspapers.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Impiger
The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job.
Grunt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HCDC is a very positive voice on behalf of the men and women in dark/light blue and green.
However, it is largely ignored by HMG. For example, HCDC have pressed for an independent complaints commission for the Armed Forces and have been ignored. HCDC were also very critical over the pension changes and the lamentable lack of consultation. I believe that Committee member (and much-missed) Rachel Squire MP used the term "stabbed in the back" with reference to a certain (unlamented) former Secretary of State.
There is little effective Parliamentary scrutiny over the Armed Forces and the forthcoming Bill seeks to lessen the limited oversight (offered by the annually-renewed Service Discipline Acts) even further.
However, it is largely ignored by HMG. For example, HCDC have pressed for an independent complaints commission for the Armed Forces and have been ignored. HCDC were also very critical over the pension changes and the lamentable lack of consultation. I believe that Committee member (and much-missed) Rachel Squire MP used the term "stabbed in the back" with reference to a certain (unlamented) former Secretary of State.
There is little effective Parliamentary scrutiny over the Armed Forces and the forthcoming Bill seeks to lessen the limited oversight (offered by the annually-renewed Service Discipline Acts) even further.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Grunt - raw nerve or something? Have you ever spoken to any member of the HCDC? I have and believe me they do 'by and large' do a good job for the collective welfare of soldiers sailors and airmen - no they don't do individual casework - which your MP might - but they do have our best interests at heart. Jess the Dog is right about their comments on the new Pension - they also comment on the quality of our kit, and the absence thereof. Go read some of their reports and then see if you still hate them!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Armed Forces Federation - Battle Drums being Beat
Read all about it here -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...190144,00.html
Now, I am not one of those pinko softie left wing commie striking types, but does anyone else feel that this is a thourghly good idea?
More here :
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...190144,00.html
Now, I am not one of those pinko softie left wing commie striking types, but does anyone else feel that this is a thourghly good idea?
More here :
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html
The 10 Point Plan.
1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF).
2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official cooperation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.
3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.
4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join.
5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include:
(a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information;
(b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel;
(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support;
(d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and
(e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals.
6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis.
7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct.
8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance.
9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared.
10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence.
1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF).
2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official cooperation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.
3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.
4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join.
5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include:
(a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information;
(b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel;
(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support;
(d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and
(e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals.
6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis.
7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct.
8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance.
9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared.
10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence.
Last edited by mbga9pgf; 21st May 2006 at 11:56.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.
Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.
Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BellEndBob
I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.
Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity.
Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck.
Not to get anyone confused, I am not involved in the org, but as with yourself, find the idea a breath of fresh air, as I have increasingly felt of late that the front line guys are lacking a significant voice in terms of equipment and more significantly welfare of troops on det,.especially in this politically correct pseudo press led world we live in. Just thought the wider PPrune audience would like to know about scheme and that it appears as if its off the ground.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew Gilligan discovers disturbing new evidence of how wounded Iraq veterans are being abandoned,
If this 'Federation' has anything to contribute to such situations, then its probably worthwhile. But I'm reminded of the expression...
"Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is considerable interest in this issue on the ARRSE website. Many think "enough is enough" and are fed up of being told by MoD spin doctors and deceitful ministers that all in the garden is rosy, when the Mk 1 eyeball can detect quite clearly it is not.
The public and Parliament will listen to an independent voice, which will provide a counterbalance to cost-cutting spin which sees TA soldiers without the medical care they deserve, the penny-pinching refusal to fit suppressive foam systems and so on. The Parliamentary Armed Forces Bill Committee and the House of Commons Defence Committee are interested in this initiative, as minutes of their meetings indicate. There is also keen media interest (and there has been since earlier this year).
The 10 point plan indicates the direction of the Federation - not a union - which should encourage all in uniform - at least, those who don't have their snouts in the Whitehall trough! MoD cannot prevent this initiative from happening and have admitted as much, and the Bett report of some years back recommended a Federation if there was demand.
Go for it!
The public and Parliament will listen to an independent voice, which will provide a counterbalance to cost-cutting spin which sees TA soldiers without the medical care they deserve, the penny-pinching refusal to fit suppressive foam systems and so on. The Parliamentary Armed Forces Bill Committee and the House of Commons Defence Committee are interested in this initiative, as minutes of their meetings indicate. There is also keen media interest (and there has been since earlier this year).
The 10 point plan indicates the direction of the Federation - not a union - which should encourage all in uniform - at least, those who don't have their snouts in the Whitehall trough! MoD cannot prevent this initiative from happening and have admitted as much, and the Bett report of some years back recommended a Federation if there was demand.
Go for it!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DESERTION
Setting up of BAFF appears quite timely. Proposed legislation on desertion in Armed Forces Bill;
Clause 8: Desertion
60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends:
not to return at all, or
to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory.
61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later.
62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described
Are they getting a bit twitchy? Life imprisonment for avoiding the Iraq war? Nice one. I can think of one politician who deserves life imprisonment ahead of any soldier.
Clause 8: Desertion
60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends:
not to return at all, or
to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory.
61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later.
62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described
Are they getting a bit twitchy? Life imprisonment for avoiding the Iraq war? Nice one. I can think of one politician who deserves life imprisonment ahead of any soldier.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring on the BAFF...!
A BAFF is long overdue - and its an organisation that the new boys are going to need far more than the old hands - once upon a time all servicmen had a degree of respect from the government! Now we're just the toys of a spoilt leadership who is more likly to throw the broken pieces away rather than try to fix 'em! 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potentially a very useful organisation - not just for the membership.
Presuming the very highest senior officers do give a sh!t they can both listen to the Fed in the absence of middle management telling them the truth and potentially then get a grip of the situation earlier!
Provided it's not politicised or, dare I say it RAFA-cised, with little relevance to today's RAF, it can only do good. By that I mean long-term good as opposed to brushing over issues in the tabloids.
I'd join tomorrow and certainly not because of the rebel shock factor.
Presuming the very highest senior officers do give a sh!t they can both listen to the Fed in the absence of middle management telling them the truth and potentially then get a grip of the situation earlier!
Provided it's not politicised or, dare I say it RAFA-cised, with little relevance to today's RAF, it can only do good. By that I mean long-term good as opposed to brushing over issues in the tabloids.
I'd join tomorrow and certainly not because of the rebel shock factor.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be a sorry day when we have to rely on a federation to represent us. Whether that day has arrived I am not sure, but what concerns me is that any sort of organisation that 'represents us' may simply be used by those with an interest to distract from the real source of our gripes.
Who is responsible for the fire brigades' debacle? We may think it's the Gov't, but many (judging by this Forum) blame the FBU (or at least their former leader). Just a thought.
How soon would problems in the military be attributed (at least in part) to the 'Federation'?
STH
Who is responsible for the fire brigades' debacle? We may think it's the Gov't, but many (judging by this Forum) blame the FBU (or at least their former leader). Just a thought.
How soon would problems in the military be attributed (at least in part) to the 'Federation'?
STH