What is going on at the top??
Fortissimo
I guess it depends if you think ‘neutral’ is satisfied or not. I tend to look for positive indicators to say when someone is satisfied
Anyway, the level of detail you want is in those stats, but just for the examples you want, here you go (original in quotes):
Of the 49% I said that were dissatisfied with their quarters, then 33% were totally dissatisfied and 15% were “meh!” or neutral (note there is a 1% rounding error in the figures). As for the Messes, then 39% were totally dissatisfied and 17% were “meh!”. I still think that is poor and something for our senior leadership to be utterly ashamed of. I have had people that work with me (their entire family in the quarter too!) that have had lung infections from the mould in their quarters and others in their mess room - one even had to throw their shoes away as they had gone mouldy! Right now CHOM has no heating and won’t do until next year.
That sort of carp is why people leave, not because of some virtue signalling name change.
I guess it depends if you think ‘neutral’ is satisfied or not. I tend to look for positive indicators to say when someone is satisfied
Anyway, the level of detail you want is in those stats, but just for the examples you want, here you go (original in quotes):
51% of the RAF are satisfied with their Service Families’ Accommodation. Ie. 49% are dissatisfied with their married quarters.
45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation.
45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation.
That sort of carp is why people leave, not because of some virtue signalling name change.
You are quite right. stats show that the majority of the british public have an above average number of legs.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs
Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs.
Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) .
Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average.
Stats can prove anything you want.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs
Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs.
Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) .
Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average.
Stats can prove anything you want.
Joking aside, there are three [actually more] ways of finding a characteristic of a statistical population. I suggest "mode" is a good fit for the legs research. Your folk with fewer than two legs and my three-legged Manxmen would be seen to be a very insignificant contribution.
Cut me off at the knees and call me TRIPOD!
SoS Defence piles in:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...sive-language/
For those who can't see the text in the telegraph, the article is above.
It would seem the SoS defence is not happy with the guidance. Does that mean it does not go far enough, or does it go too far? My reading is that it goes too far. Is it at odds with CAS and aviator?
Armed forces to get new guidance on how to use 'inclusive language'
The new guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility
ByDominic Nicholls, DEFENCE AND SECURITY EDITOR12 December 2021 • 4:16pm
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin pictured in April CREDIT: PA
The armed forces are to be given new guidance on “inclusive language” after the Defence Secretary said he is “unhappy” with the current advice.
Military personnel from all three services had been told to avoid using phrases such as "crippled with debt" or "blind drunk".
The MoD said its Inclusive Language Guide 2021 was a “practical toolkit” to help servicemen and women understand why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive”.
A senior defence source told the Telegraph: "The Defence Secretary and Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) have been clear that the UK armed forces must modernise to tackle the threats of the future. That includes our approach to our people who are critical to that task.
“The Defence Secretary is unhappy with the current approach set out in the guide. A revised version will be published in the coming weeks."
The guide will be taken down from the MoD website while changes are made.
The guide, produced by the MoD's Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, denies being "an attempt to police language" or "restrict your personal style of communication", but was created to help staff "speak more powerfully, precisely and respectfully", according to the Mail on Sunday.
It recommended avoiding phrases such as "deaf to our pleas" in case it offended the disabled.
The 30-page pamphlet said the words "woman" and "female" “mean different things but are often used interchangeably”, adding: “Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.
“Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.”
“The women in the platoon” is said to be a more inclusive phrase than “the females in the platoon”.
The guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility. The MoD wants personnel to put the “person first”
The new guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility
ByDominic Nicholls, DEFENCE AND SECURITY EDITOR12 December 2021 • 4:16pm
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin pictured in April CREDIT: PA
The armed forces are to be given new guidance on “inclusive language” after the Defence Secretary said he is “unhappy” with the current advice.
Military personnel from all three services had been told to avoid using phrases such as "crippled with debt" or "blind drunk".
The MoD said its Inclusive Language Guide 2021 was a “practical toolkit” to help servicemen and women understand why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive”.
A senior defence source told the Telegraph: "The Defence Secretary and Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) have been clear that the UK armed forces must modernise to tackle the threats of the future. That includes our approach to our people who are critical to that task.
“The Defence Secretary is unhappy with the current approach set out in the guide. A revised version will be published in the coming weeks."
The guide will be taken down from the MoD website while changes are made.
The guide, produced by the MoD's Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, denies being "an attempt to police language" or "restrict your personal style of communication", but was created to help staff "speak more powerfully, precisely and respectfully", according to the Mail on Sunday.
It recommended avoiding phrases such as "deaf to our pleas" in case it offended the disabled.
The 30-page pamphlet said the words "woman" and "female" “mean different things but are often used interchangeably”, adding: “Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.
“Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.”
“The women in the platoon” is said to be a more inclusive phrase than “the females in the platoon”.
The guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility. The MoD wants personnel to put the “person first”
For those who can't see the text in the telegraph, the article is above.
It would seem the SoS defence is not happy with the guidance. Does that mean it does not go far enough, or does it go too far? My reading is that it goes too far. Is it at odds with CAS and aviator?
Last edited by cynicalint; 12th Dec 2021 at 21:09.
As I said to him earlier. He has been given short shrift here and should refrain from telling us what to think. His sad handbag-swinging about 'values and standards' belong in the bin, along with his trite (and often wrong) Thin Pinstriped Line Blog, where he pontificates about military matters based on his experience as a civil servant. Ha ha ha.
) shot about wanting to imitate submariners with the F35 accident. Having got all uppity and defensive in response to Baggers' criticism, he then edited the blog to be somewhat less partisan, resulting in Baggers getting a load of stick from people who'd only seen the edited version. As ever it pays to be aware of the personal baggage of an opinion writer, something made difficult when they operate only under a pseudonym.Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He got into a very testy Twitter exchange with Greg Bagwell this weekend just gone over his latest adulatory blog on CSG21, in which pretty much his only mention of the RAF contribution was a cheap (and inaccurate ) shot about wanting to imitate submariners with the F35 accident. Having got all uppity and defensive in response to Baggers' criticism, he then edited the blog to be somewhat less partisan, resulting in Baggers getting a load of stick from people who'd only seen the edited version. As ever it pays to be aware of the personal baggage of an opinion writer, something made difficult when they operate only under a pseudonym.
) shot about wanting to imitate submariners with the F35 accident. Having got all uppity and defensive in response to Baggers' criticism, he then edited the blog to be somewhat less partisan, resulting in Baggers getting a load of stick from people who'd only seen the edited version. As ever it pays to be aware of the personal baggage of an opinion writer, something made difficult when they operate only under a pseudonym.Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this right...... An Aviator is involved in a war. He, sorry they, come face to face with the enemy who is about to shoot them. They can therefore shoot and kill the enemy, but must be very careful in what they say or shout.... just in case they offend them as they are dying? Really!!!!!
The SofS may wish to withdraw it, but once it’s on t’internet then you instantly lose control of it. Plenty of examples of the poorly staffed document if people look for them: https://www.scribd.com/document/5305...-Guidance-v1-O
Looking forward to see what V2.0 looks like!
Looking forward to see what V2.0 looks like!
So let me get this right...... An Aviator is involved in a war. He, sorry they, come face to face with the enemy who is about to shoot them. They can therefore shoot and kill the enemy, but must be very careful in what they say or shout.... just in case they offend them as they are dying? Really!!!!!
Mog out.
