What would you like to see changed in MOD and across the Services?
Thread Starter
What would you like to see changed in MOD and across the Services?
It’s been a while since I’ve been on PPrune as I have been in recovery from various ailments, but I’m back in writing mode and keen to review Defence Transformation from an academic perspective.
My my most recent time in the MOD was frustrated by archaic, prescriptive rules on procurement - especially in the COTS and infrastructure arenas. Personnel wise, by the requirement to climb a greasy pole and take assignments unrelated to core expertise. And the parlous care of RAF personnel out with RAF TLB...
The exam question is, I suppose, if you could implement change in the MOD, what are the five things you’d like to see tackled?
Regards,
Whenurhappy
My my most recent time in the MOD was frustrated by archaic, prescriptive rules on procurement - especially in the COTS and infrastructure arenas. Personnel wise, by the requirement to climb a greasy pole and take assignments unrelated to core expertise. And the parlous care of RAF personnel out with RAF TLB...
The exam question is, I suppose, if you could implement change in the MOD, what are the five things you’d like to see tackled?
Regards,
Whenurhappy
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 21st Jul 2019 at 06:59.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Moray
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of all things that must change, is better delivery of The Offer of Service and the loss of values-based thinking at the top which erodes it. If you have never actually read The Offer, I would encourage you to do so for it is the closest thing you have to an employment contract. The current philosophy of the Chain fo Command is to protect the reputation of our Armed Forces at all costs, and not the service person who contributes to it. This allows for, for example, the cover up of injustice within, leading to the total loss of the reputation one wishes to preserve of course.
An indicator that leads to this outcome is in matters of military justice that involve you, Defence will investigate itself, and mark itself, for itself. If you disagree with the outcome of the Chain of Command as a result of what is an 'ineffective, inefficient and unfair' complaint process give the way that the Chain of Command exercise it, you can invite The Ombudsman to take a look. But... before wasting your time there, you would be wise to note that whilst her decisions are binding, her recommendations are not. The wrong that she may record, years later, is left to Defence to right, should they wish to do so, and only in the way they want to do so as a means of protecting the reputation - not you.
Your Ombudsman has no power - but she does have a £2M annual budget.
Those who serve need better access to justice and independent advice as to how to go and get it.
Yesterday, to better help you then and your families, and veterans, should you ever find yourselves entangled in military (in)justice, you can now get that independent advice and counsel, free, from those in the know. A bunch of capable, credible and highly committed people have set up Justice4Troops for you. Look out for Justice4Troops coming your way. It is the first of its kind.
With The Offer failing to deliver true to its purpose, you(we) will continue to endure the poison that ruins the lives of our people when investigations of complaint are done BY the military, FOR the military in order to meet he military need - which is not you. It is the reputation as the first order. The new Defence authority will deliver the same outcome - injustice perpetrated by the some of the worst in Defence against some of the best in Defence, then you will be abandoned and isolated if you dare to complain. Should you complain, you will then find that you've no independent representation nor the means to access justice whilst at the same time, you find yourself being punished for complaining about something serious - sexual assault being an example, such that offence repeats itself due poor investigation with the opportunity to learn being lost. We must introduce an independent line of enquiry as an end to end.
If you do not have a safe means to secure justice for your people, and currently those who serve in our Armed Forces do not, then you have no Offer worth its salt. That may contribute to the ongoing retention and recruitment crisis, which in turn, the Chain of Command, being unable to recover either, places yet more emphasis on reputation as part of the cover up, but at your expense.
If anyone knows how to set up a website for Justice4Troops, and/or a FB site, pm me please!
An indicator that leads to this outcome is in matters of military justice that involve you, Defence will investigate itself, and mark itself, for itself. If you disagree with the outcome of the Chain of Command as a result of what is an 'ineffective, inefficient and unfair' complaint process give the way that the Chain of Command exercise it, you can invite The Ombudsman to take a look. But... before wasting your time there, you would be wise to note that whilst her decisions are binding, her recommendations are not. The wrong that she may record, years later, is left to Defence to right, should they wish to do so, and only in the way they want to do so as a means of protecting the reputation - not you.
Your Ombudsman has no power - but she does have a £2M annual budget.
Those who serve need better access to justice and independent advice as to how to go and get it.
Yesterday, to better help you then and your families, and veterans, should you ever find yourselves entangled in military (in)justice, you can now get that independent advice and counsel, free, from those in the know. A bunch of capable, credible and highly committed people have set up Justice4Troops for you. Look out for Justice4Troops coming your way. It is the first of its kind.
With The Offer failing to deliver true to its purpose, you(we) will continue to endure the poison that ruins the lives of our people when investigations of complaint are done BY the military, FOR the military in order to meet he military need - which is not you. It is the reputation as the first order. The new Defence authority will deliver the same outcome - injustice perpetrated by the some of the worst in Defence against some of the best in Defence, then you will be abandoned and isolated if you dare to complain. Should you complain, you will then find that you've no independent representation nor the means to access justice whilst at the same time, you find yourself being punished for complaining about something serious - sexual assault being an example, such that offence repeats itself due poor investigation with the opportunity to learn being lost. We must introduce an independent line of enquiry as an end to end.
If you do not have a safe means to secure justice for your people, and currently those who serve in our Armed Forces do not, then you have no Offer worth its salt. That may contribute to the ongoing retention and recruitment crisis, which in turn, the Chain of Command, being unable to recover either, places yet more emphasis on reputation as part of the cover up, but at your expense.
If anyone knows how to set up a website for Justice4Troops, and/or a FB site, pm me please!
It’s been a while since I’ve been on PPrune as I have been in recovery from various ailments, but I’m back in writing mode and keen to review Defence Transformation from an academic perspective.
My my most recent time in the MOD was frustrated by archaic, prescriptive rules on procurement - especially in the COTS and infrastructure arenas. Personnel wise, by the requirement to climb a greasy pole and take assignments unrelated to core expertise. And the parlous care of RAF personnel out with RAF TLB...
The exam question is, I suppose, if you could implement change in the MOD, what are the five things you’d like to see tackled?
Regards,
Whenurhappy
My my most recent time in the MOD was frustrated by archaic, prescriptive rules on procurement - especially in the COTS and infrastructure arenas. Personnel wise, by the requirement to climb a greasy pole and take assignments unrelated to core expertise. And the parlous care of RAF personnel out with RAF TLB...
The exam question is, I suppose, if you could implement change in the MOD, what are the five things you’d like to see tackled?
Regards,
Whenurhappy
2. Civil servants and Military personnel being held to account for bad decisions
Thread Starter
Thanks these are all good points.
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,842 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
As above re held account.
A limitation put on so called incidents of say 10 years to stop the likes of the NI troubles court cases.
A rebuilding of the Navy and a realisation across the board that no matter how capable one new model frigate is over three or four of the previous model frigates, that capability means squat if you need to be in two places at once, something the Gulf is showing to be true, insufficient vessels to cover the simplest of escort tasks.
RAF airshows, show the public what they are getting for their money, not just the three or four usually types, better for recruiting, better helping people understand where there money goes. Televise it again.
Bring all services back in house and military positions and not contracted as said, you may save some money having a civilian issuing blankets, but at the end of the day that civilian cannot carry arms so are combat ineffective.
A limitation put on so called incidents of say 10 years to stop the likes of the NI troubles court cases.
A rebuilding of the Navy and a realisation across the board that no matter how capable one new model frigate is over three or four of the previous model frigates, that capability means squat if you need to be in two places at once, something the Gulf is showing to be true, insufficient vessels to cover the simplest of escort tasks.
RAF airshows, show the public what they are getting for their money, not just the three or four usually types, better for recruiting, better helping people understand where there money goes. Televise it again.
Bring all services back in house and military positions and not contracted as said, you may save some money having a civilian issuing blankets, but at the end of the day that civilian cannot carry arms so are combat ineffective.
1 Return to rates thereby scrapping the audit process that sends out bills for pathetically small amounts-what happened to materiality ?
2 Abolition of the current hotac and travel booking system which invariably costs more and takes longer
2 Abolition of the current hotac and travel booking system which invariably costs more and takes longer
Thread Starter
Methinks HRG are playing both sides towards the centre.
Ideally the fraud, corruption and bribery in the star chamber would be investigated by an external agency that would seek independent prosecutions. Until we can admit these issues exist and hold people to account the corrosive impact will forever filter down the rank chain*.
I know the SPA has tried to move on some cases with Service lawyers taking a more investigative role, but every one has been crushed, usually with collateral damage to good and honest folk. This would also reduce the charade of courts martial for relative minor infractions committed by junior ranks, whilst the millions lost through corruption go unaddressed.
The US Navy have probably gone a little too far the other way, but at least they have pushed such issues into the light.
(* yes I know there have been a few cases where a large group of more junior service personnel have escaped prosecution for prima facie offences due to potential reputational damage issues, but those decisions were looking up to the star chamber, rather than down.)
I know the SPA has tried to move on some cases with Service lawyers taking a more investigative role, but every one has been crushed, usually with collateral damage to good and honest folk. This would also reduce the charade of courts martial for relative minor infractions committed by junior ranks, whilst the millions lost through corruption go unaddressed.
The US Navy have probably gone a little too far the other way, but at least they have pushed such issues into the light.
(* yes I know there have been a few cases where a large group of more junior service personnel have escaped prosecution for prima facie offences due to potential reputational damage issues, but those decisions were looking up to the star chamber, rather than down.)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,842 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
Bring back good conduct stripes, so good conduct can be balanced against bad, get a charge lose a stripe or two.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Moray
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Offer
Referencing my previous...The Offer of Service
Chief of Defence Personnel (CDP) Foreward
People lie at the heart of operational capability; attracting and retaining the right numbers of capable, motivated individuals to deliver Defence outputs is critical. This is dependent upon maintaining a credible and realistic offer that earns and retains the trust of people in Defence. In order to achieve this, all personnel must be confident that, not only will they be treated fairly, but also that their families will be treated properly and that Service veterans and their dependants will be respected and appropriately supported.
You have no employment contract
You have no Independent Representation
You have no Independent Federation
You have no access to free legal advice
You can be loyal, disciplined and true to the flag but you will still get thrown under the bus by the Chain of Command to preserve the reputation of the Armed Forces
And when you enter the veteran sector.....well good luck navigating your way through that mess!
Chief of Defence Personnel (CDP) Foreward
People lie at the heart of operational capability; attracting and retaining the right numbers of capable, motivated individuals to deliver Defence outputs is critical. This is dependent upon maintaining a credible and realistic offer that earns and retains the trust of people in Defence. In order to achieve this, all personnel must be confident that, not only will they be treated fairly, but also that their families will be treated properly and that Service veterans and their dependants will be respected and appropriately supported.
You have no employment contract
You have no Independent Representation
You have no Independent Federation
You have no access to free legal advice
You can be loyal, disciplined and true to the flag but you will still get thrown under the bus by the Chain of Command to preserve the reputation of the Armed Forces
And when you enter the veteran sector.....well good luck navigating your way through that mess!
Good question, difficult answer. Each to his own.
I'd keep it simple at first:
Implement mandated Requirement Scrutiny rules. They're there to prevent waste, and make sure you get the right kit/capability at the right cost. The difficulty is that various Ministers/PUSs over the last 23 years are on record as disagreeing; and MoD has largely ignored the concept ever since. Perhaps a task for Captain Mercer MP, if Boris gives him the job.
Do that, and an awful lot falls into place.
I'd keep it simple at first:
Implement mandated Requirement Scrutiny rules. They're there to prevent waste, and make sure you get the right kit/capability at the right cost. The difficulty is that various Ministers/PUSs over the last 23 years are on record as disagreeing; and MoD has largely ignored the concept ever since. Perhaps a task for Captain Mercer MP, if Boris gives him the job.
Do that, and an awful lot falls into place.
Bring back the "Tot"!
I suggest the intent of this quote be applied figuratively not literally....but I could be persuaded.
It applies as much to the US DOD as it does the UK MOD....both military and civilian.
I suggest the intent of this quote be applied figuratively not literally....but I could be persuaded.
It applies as much to the US DOD as it does the UK MOD....both military and civilian.
In this country it is a good thing to kill an Admiral
from time to time to encourage the others.
- Voltaire
from time to time to encourage the others.
- Voltaire
Last edited by SASless; 21st Jul 2019 at 14:11.
A completely independent review of the number of OF5 and above in their roles and why they need so many. Either we extol the virtue of mission command or we remain a slave to the misaligned directions of some senior officers feathering their nests for their post-military jobs.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK - sometimes
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider the long game when it comes to financial (and other) planning. Short term wins often have a long term cost.
Works for “investing” in people too, and I don’t mean the defunct IIP scheme!
Works for “investing” in people too, and I don’t mean the defunct IIP scheme!
What a question! How long have you got? nothing will change until we get a government which understands the importance of defence. Whilst successive PMs/Cabinets favour so-called celebs (think Blair) and place great importance on throwing money at benefits/health/education, but without discovering the causes of why those department are short of money, defence with take a low priority. However, without adequate defence, they may be no health, education or benefits. So what would I personally like to see change? A wiser government which is not obsessed with PR & celebs. At the very least, let's have a few ex good military in the government. Notice I say 'good' as not all ex military MPs are good.
Thanks these are all good points.
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
Maybe refund Defence by scrapping the commitment to splurge £14B a year on the Indian space programme under the guise of foreign aid...
Thanks these are all good points.
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
Can i I ask for a bit of clarity on the de-contractorising?
Why?
Presumably you mean to bring services back in-house, but without an increase in the SP and CS headcount or increase in overall budget? (Both are regarded as constraints).
TBH RAF IT was never exactly brilliant- all the good guys 'n girls make so much more in civvie street and without all the discipline etc etc