Sacked RAF Liable to Call Up for 18 Years
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME ****ING PUKE.
/QUOTE]
Oh how we do appreciate a well considered argument from a rational and intelligent expert in his field; and one based on well researched fact too! After such a clever and comprehensive response we might as well close this thread; after all, there is nothing left to say is there!!!
/QUOTE]
Oh how we do appreciate a well considered argument from a rational and intelligent expert in his field; and one based on well researched fact too! After such a clever and comprehensive response we might as well close this thread; after all, there is nothing left to say is there!!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
I think that the time to be unhappy is when you get your re-call letter in order to act as a car park attendant for the Olympics.......
They didn't get the idea from me - OK?
They didn't get the idea from me - OK?
Maybe the FAPS should consider this legal obligation when they determine the specifics of our next pension? How many other jobs carry such a commitment which could have far reaching implications on an individual should they find themselves having to honour it?
Hopefully for most, the argument is academic as if the country is in genuine dire straits (WW3!) most would want to do their bit anyway and I would sooner sit in a CAOC picking my nose and boring the ops staff with my 'war stories' than get drafted into the army and sit in a ditch watching atom bombs go bang.
Hopefully for most, the argument is academic as if the country is in genuine dire straits (WW3!) most would want to do their bit anyway and I would sooner sit in a CAOC picking my nose and boring the ops staff with my 'war stories' than get drafted into the army and sit in a ditch watching atom bombs go bang.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
monkfish - are you mental......
Have you ever seen a docudrama called Threads??
I always said I'd be outside with a beer and my beloved beside me, shades on and going to see a real bright light - no horrid end of the world aftermath from that one........
Non nuclear end of the world - you know the standard zombie apocralype....
bring it on - I got my plans.
As to the purpose of this thread - they need to define the circumstances, and we cut back too far to carry out our latest politico ego trip does not cut it,
Have you ever seen a docudrama called Threads??
I always said I'd be outside with a beer and my beloved beside me, shades on and going to see a real bright light - no horrid end of the world aftermath from that one........
Non nuclear end of the world - you know the standard zombie apocralype....
bring it on - I got my plans.
As to the purpose of this thread - they need to define the circumstances, and we cut back too far to carry out our latest politico ego trip does not cut it,
Thread Starter
As to the purpose of this thread - they need to define the circumstances, and we cut back too far to carry out our latest politico ego trip does not cut it,
But the other purpose behind the thread was to try and establish exactly what the reserve liability actually is. Is there are set length of time that a reserve liability exists for i.e. X years from leaving? Or is benchmarked against your age i.e. you have a liability for recall until you hit 55, 60 etc ? I for one have certainly never had it explained; when I have asked J1 in the past, they muttered something about APs and JSPs without actually answering the question. Having Googled the Reserve Forces Act, that again, didn't seem to have dates and durations, just the circumstances (which seem to now be fairly broad) in which they can recall you. It would be quite nice, if not reassuring, to be able to find someone or somewhere that has this sort of detail to hand rather than getting the nasty surprise when the OHMS letter hits the door mat after you think you have done your time for Queen & Country.
My specialism is the British Army in and just before the Great War. In those days a soldier's commitment was on one piece of foolscap. The most usual was "7 and 5" ...... 7 years with the colours, 5 on the reserve, end of message.
There was provision for an extra year if overseas at the end of the 7 [a year for King George], or if a war broke out. Either way, the maximum commitment was 13 years in uniform. During the initial 7 years a man could voluntarily extend to pension c. 21 years, with the agreement of his CO.
Only conscription could overturn the moment when a man coulld say "pull up the ladder Jack!"
As a civilian outsider I am baffled that serving and retired RAF officers and men do not have a similar document.
There was provision for an extra year if overseas at the end of the 7 [a year for King George], or if a war broke out. Either way, the maximum commitment was 13 years in uniform. During the initial 7 years a man could voluntarily extend to pension c. 21 years, with the agreement of his CO.
Only conscription could overturn the moment when a man coulld say "pull up the ladder Jack!"
As a civilian outsider I am baffled that serving and retired RAF officers and men do not have a similar document.
The whole thing smacks of an utter non story drawn up by people grumpy at being reminded that they've signed a contractual agreement which includes reserve service.
As far as I can make out, the regular component of the reserve has been used in tiny, tiny numbers since 2003 - I think it was used to find a couple of deep specialists who werent in the TA or Volunteer reserves, and even then I got the impression that it was done on a 'would you like to come along, if so then let us know and we'll call you up'.
The regular reserve is a bit of a historical legacy - great if you're planning for WW3 and Russians over the border, but in reality, its not been updated as a contigency planning tool for decades. What it is now is a pool of people, some of whom choose to stay in contact with the RAF, and of them, a smaller group of people may chose, if asked, to enter service.
The reality is that there is not going to be a mass call up of ex regular RAF personnel recently made redundant, except in the febrile mind of a particularly poor newspaper correspondent. To get to the stage where the RAF is actively considering a general call up ex Regs, it would need to have exhausted the entire pool of regular manpower, put the volunteer reserves into 100% mobilisation and still be running short of people. I suspect if we're in that sort of national emergency, many people would be volunteering to come back anyway.
No sane desk officer is going to be putting a ministerial submission in requesting permission to compulsorily call up ex regular personnel who've just left HM Forces. Its simply not going to happen.
What has happened is that people have been reminded of their obligations, that they signed up to when they joined the Air Force, and they are now sulking because theoretically they may be liable at some point when its going very, very badly wrong, to receive a phone call saying 'would you mind'?
Its a non story except to people who like being easily outraged.
As far as I can make out, the regular component of the reserve has been used in tiny, tiny numbers since 2003 - I think it was used to find a couple of deep specialists who werent in the TA or Volunteer reserves, and even then I got the impression that it was done on a 'would you like to come along, if so then let us know and we'll call you up'.
The regular reserve is a bit of a historical legacy - great if you're planning for WW3 and Russians over the border, but in reality, its not been updated as a contigency planning tool for decades. What it is now is a pool of people, some of whom choose to stay in contact with the RAF, and of them, a smaller group of people may chose, if asked, to enter service.
The reality is that there is not going to be a mass call up of ex regular RAF personnel recently made redundant, except in the febrile mind of a particularly poor newspaper correspondent. To get to the stage where the RAF is actively considering a general call up ex Regs, it would need to have exhausted the entire pool of regular manpower, put the volunteer reserves into 100% mobilisation and still be running short of people. I suspect if we're in that sort of national emergency, many people would be volunteering to come back anyway.
No sane desk officer is going to be putting a ministerial submission in requesting permission to compulsorily call up ex regular personnel who've just left HM Forces. Its simply not going to happen.
What has happened is that people have been reminded of their obligations, that they signed up to when they joined the Air Force, and they are now sulking because theoretically they may be liable at some point when its going very, very badly wrong, to receive a phone call saying 'would you mind'?
Its a non story except to people who like being easily outraged.
Thread Starter
The whole thing smacks of an utter non story drawn up by people grumpy at being reminded that they've signed a contractual agreement which includes reserve service.
Furthermore, I would suggest it is more symptomatic of the sort of poor leadership we have come to expect from the senior echelons. As a Flt Cdr, if we had a situation of mass confusion or people failing to understand correctly, the Boss viewed that was less of a failing on their part and more a failing on our parts as flt cdrs and leaders. As leaders, it was up to us to make sure those we were charged with leading understood what was going on, why a particular course of action was being taken and what the likely implications were of that course of action for both the individual and the unit.
Yes, you may disagree with the way in which the issue has been presented (leaked) - I have no doubt by an individual or a relative / friend of an individual who finds themselves in the boat in question. But the fact that such confusion exists, to my mind, is just another example of poor leaders not effectively communicating. Either that or based on the principle of there's no smoke without fire, then it is an issue that is doing the staffing rounds.
Just to add that the issue has been in the public domain since 18 Jan:
Reserve liability after redundancy? | from BAFF - British Armed Forces Federation
Reserve liability after redundancy? | from BAFF - British Armed Forces Federation
Commitment and loyalty work both ways. A young man or woman signs up and promises to dedicate a fair part of their lives to the service of their country. Many of them will do this in the knowledge that they had an option to chose a different career path but nevertheless they still took the oath.
It is entirely understandable, that when they are told they are no longer required, they feel the bond of trust and loyalty has been broken. To then ask them, at some unspecified point in the future, to come back again and place themselves in the hands of the service that has already rejected them is arrogance at its worst.
Being pissed about while serving is something most of us accepted. To carry it on into civvy life is ludicrous.
It is entirely understandable, that when they are told they are no longer required, they feel the bond of trust and loyalty has been broken. To then ask them, at some unspecified point in the future, to come back again and place themselves in the hands of the service that has already rejected them is arrogance at its worst.
Being pissed about while serving is something most of us accepted. To carry it on into civvy life is ludicrous.
I'm always amazed when people say that public transport is underutilised when the outrage bus on this forum is so popular.
Jimlad has it spot on - it's a complete non-story. Reserve liability has existed for decades, without being dependent on the circumstances of release. As for 'arrogance at its worst' - give us a break!
Jimlad has it spot on - it's a complete non-story. Reserve liability has existed for decades, without being dependent on the circumstances of release. As for 'arrogance at its worst' - give us a break!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This spells out quite clearly the reserve liability "At the end of your service in the Regular Forces...", although it does not specifiy how that end of service came about.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/68DEE...uide_p4562.pdf
For RAF officers the liability goes on to age 60 - this did surprise me when I appled for a job that asked if I had a military reserve liability, especially as I was considered by my desk oficer as "too old to get back into the cockpit" at age 46, and you're considered to be well over the hill at age 55.
Had I known earlier about this handy little bulletin, I could have used the get out on the last page (medically unfit, changed address and living overseas):
Mister B
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/68DEE...uide_p4562.pdf
For RAF officers the liability goes on to age 60 - this did surprise me when I appled for a job that asked if I had a military reserve liability, especially as I was considered by my desk oficer as "too old to get back into the cockpit" at age 46, and you're considered to be well over the hill at age 55.
Had I known earlier about this handy little bulletin, I could have used the get out on the last page (medically unfit, changed address and living overseas):
You have a legal duty to inform your Service
Personnel Centre (SPC) of any circumstances
which may affect your call-out or recall. These
would include any change of name or address,
if you believe you have become medically unfit
for service in the Armed Forces, or you plan to
be abroad for a period of over 3 months.Personnel Centre (SPC) of any circumstances
which may affect your call-out or recall. These
would include any change of name or address,
if you believe you have become medically unfit
for service in the Armed Forces, or you plan to
Mister B
A few points / questions.
1. The Reserve List. When was the last time the list was tested? Write to 100 random individuals; check they respond and are fit, etc. I strongly suspect the answer is never, and that the response would show the list to be worthless.
2. What is the utility of calling up people who were sacked or who PVR'd? If the reason for recall is politically dodgy, then dissent will increase. If the reason is a genuine threat to the values we all joined up to defend, then those who left will be phoning the Government, rather than the other way around.
3. How much use is someone who left 20 years ago? Especially when my understanding is that we must be employed in the same branch? I would expect to be asked to report to Hendon, since that's where all my aircraft types now are.
3. Is not the whole reserve list a means for politicians to pretend the country has a back-up plan, when in fact it doesn't?
1. The Reserve List. When was the last time the list was tested? Write to 100 random individuals; check they respond and are fit, etc. I strongly suspect the answer is never, and that the response would show the list to be worthless.
2. What is the utility of calling up people who were sacked or who PVR'd? If the reason for recall is politically dodgy, then dissent will increase. If the reason is a genuine threat to the values we all joined up to defend, then those who left will be phoning the Government, rather than the other way around.
3. How much use is someone who left 20 years ago? Especially when my understanding is that we must be employed in the same branch? I would expect to be asked to report to Hendon, since that's where all my aircraft types now are.
3. Is not the whole reserve list a means for politicians to pretend the country has a back-up plan, when in fact it doesn't?
2. What is the utility of calling up people who were sacked or who PVR'd? If the reason for recall is politically dodgy, then dissent will increase. If the reason is a genuine threat to the values we all joined up to defend, then those who left will be phoning the Government, rather than the other way around.
If the requirement for reservists really does make it more difficult to embark on an expeditionary campaign which is "politically dodgy", some would argue that that is actually a good thing.
It is not just a pinko peacenik argument. US forces supposedly reconfigured themselves post-Vietnam with, some say, the conscious intention of making it impossible to embark on medium to large scale operations without reservist participation and a degree of public support.
Thanks for the example. If this was the Moshin Khan case, then I'm not sure it changes the argument. From my reading of the court summary, the RAF advised him to apply for discharge from duty on the grounds of conscientious objection. It indicates he was likely to have this approved. He declined, attended pre-deployment training, then went AWOL. This makes him a plonker at best.
Having a major engagement require reservists to happen doesn't seem to have stopped politicians starting unpopular wars. It just seems to have stopped them having a chance of winning them.
Having a major engagement require reservists to happen doesn't seem to have stopped politicians starting unpopular wars. It just seems to have stopped them having a chance of winning them.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Quote:
If you become Resident overseas you are no longer liable for recall.
Just as well......Turncoats not wanted!
If you become Resident overseas you are no longer liable for recall.
Just as well......Turncoats not wanted!
On benefits.... just in case the military decides it wants you back in the next three decades....
I always wanted to be a street busker. Got the guitar (can't play it, can't sing, so well qualified in both respects). Got the mangey dog too. Just popping out for a carrier bag full of Special Brew, then we're away!
Excellent point Shy!
Or even if your new profession is in desperate demand (science teaching in my case), does "loyalty" require one should stay and put up with moronic Government policy which is trashing your profession?
Loyalty is supposed to work both ways, otherwise it's slavery.
Or even if your new profession is in desperate demand (science teaching in my case), does "loyalty" require one should stay and put up with moronic Government policy which is trashing your profession?
Loyalty is supposed to work both ways, otherwise it's slavery.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Agreed, and in my case, having been to work for a Communist run state, will they really want me back? I might end up having to invade myself. 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my link above, it doesn't actually say that you won't be recalled, just that you have to tell the SPC if there are changes in personal circumstances:
You have a legal duty to inform your Service
Personnel Centre (SPC) of any circumstances
which may affect your call-out or recall. These
would include any change of name or address,
if you believe you have become medically unfit
for service in the Armed Forces, or you plan to
be abroad for a period of over 3 months.
and the next paragraph:
Failure to Respond
Sad to say, I did not fulfil my legal duty - but then it was never mentioned during the discharge process, and my desk officer did say...too old. Anyway, there was no need for time-expired Tornado navs with no other specialised skills.
Mister B
Duty to inform your
Service Personnel CentreYou have a legal duty to inform your Service
Personnel Centre (SPC) of any circumstances
which may affect your call-out or recall. These
would include any change of name or address,
if you believe you have become medically unfit
for service in the Armed Forces, or you plan to
be abroad for a period of over 3 months.
and the next paragraph:
Failure to Respond
Failure to respond to a call-out or recall notice
without leave lawfully granted or reasonable
excuse is an offence under the Reserve Forces
Act 1996 which may be dealt with by the civil
courts or by court-martial.without leave lawfully granted or reasonable
excuse is an offence under the Reserve Forces
Act 1996 which may be dealt with by the civil
Sad to say, I did not fulfil my legal duty - but then it was never mentioned during the discharge process, and my desk officer did say...too old. Anyway, there was no need for time-expired Tornado navs with no other specialised skills.
Mister B
I left in 1994 on redundancy with 15 of 22 served. There was NO liability for reserve, that seems to me perfectly logical. If you deem a role to be redundant, you have done the maths and you can now function using those that remain. It's even more logical that if you give someone a tap on the shoulder and tell him he's leaving, that he probably won't do a very good job if you force him to return.