Can Wigston survive the onslaught?
...
Dear Finningley Boy
Given your significant number of learned posts and your service time, I am mildly surprised to read that -
May I recommend a bit of light hearted technical reading by noted expert author David Hill, to bring you up to speed on this particular MoD scandal ?
1. "Their Greatest Disgrace - The campaign to clear the Chinook ZD576 pilots."
2. "The Inconvenient Truth - Chinook ZD576 - Cause and culpability." (with John Blakeley)
They're both instantly available in Kindle format for very few shekels, which all goes to charity.
I suspect the late Sir John Grandy (1913 - 2004) may have weighed in for his old mates without having much of a clue about the event, and far too soon to be aware of the eventual exposure and admission of the institutional lying and airworthiness cheating by MoD etc, as described in the two books mentioned above - and in other similar current and on-going exposes (including police investigation) such as 'Red 5' and 'A Noble Anger'
Kind regards, LFH .
...
,,,
....
..
Dear Finningley Boy
Given your significant number of learned posts and your service time, I am mildly surprised to read that -
May I recommend a bit of light hearted technical reading by noted expert author David Hill, to bring you up to speed on this particular MoD scandal ?
1. "Their Greatest Disgrace - The campaign to clear the Chinook ZD576 pilots."
2. "The Inconvenient Truth - Chinook ZD576 - Cause and culpability." (with John Blakeley)
They're both instantly available in Kindle format for very few shekels, which all goes to charity.
I suspect the late Sir John Grandy (1913 - 2004) may have weighed in for his old mates without having much of a clue about the event, and far too soon to be aware of the eventual exposure and admission of the institutional lying and airworthiness cheating by MoD etc, as described in the two books mentioned above - and in other similar current and on-going exposes (including police investigation) such as 'Red 5' and 'A Noble Anger'
Kind regards, LFH .
...
,,,
....
..
I don't read kindle and do hope I won't attract critique for that particular luddite characteristic, however, I shall acquaint myself with the greater detail.
FB
PS "I'm not aware of much of the tragedy" is a relative comment.
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 22nd Jul 2023 at 19:57. Reason: update
You took it wrong. Orders to carry out meaningless tasks can be completely legal. The legality is irrelevant. Didn't you ever wonder why you had been ordered to carry out a trivial task? That is what gradually builds a reaction where you carry out an order without question. Might get a bullet otherwise. Unfortunately I believe that the responsibility for working out what is legal about an order is now upon the recipient. As for the nuclear exchange, in the aftermath with people in their death throes, what do you think any surviving armed forces are going to do? Obviously you have other ideas to me.
You took it wrong. Orders to carry out meaningless tasks can be completely legal. The legality is irrelevant. Didn't you ever wonder why you had been ordered to carry out a trivial task? That is what gradually builds a reaction where you carry out an order without question. Might get a bullet otherwise. Unfortunately I believe that the responsibility for working out what is legal about an order is now upon the recipient. As for the nuclear exchange, in the aftermath with people in their death throes, what do you think any surviving armed forces are going to do? Obviously you have other ideas to me.
As far back as the BBC documentary "War Game" in 1966 the security forces are shown shooting those who have severe radiation poisoning and burns as part of a triage system.
FB :-
He was 'involved' by the then CAS, Graydon, 'informing' him that two 'grossly negligent' pilots of the Mull chinook were 'miles off course'. Apart from anything else it shines a light into the workings of the Star Chamber. Grandy might have been old, he might have no longer been serving, but he was an MRAF and hence someone Graydon felt obliged to report too (falsely or otherwise). In short he was lied to like a cheap Changi watch and the lie made public. MRAFs have their uses...
Other have mentioned ACM Sir Michael Alcock, ex RAF Chief Engineer. Readers of David Hill's various books about the dire effects on UK Military Airworthiness due to VSO actions (and inactions) will be familiar with his name. Whether they be Engineers, Aircrew, or Administrators, VSOs are simply people, like the rest of us. It is by their actions that they should be judged. That holds true for both the present and past RAF leadership. There is nothing inherently good or bad about engineers any more than there is about aircrew.
Like LFH I would commend all David Hill's books. If you were never told much about airworthiness in training (I certainly wasn't!) his expertise and experience of the system will be an eye opener and reveal the cover up of deliberate VSO subversion of airworthiness that the Star Chamber has invoked since the mid 90s (the subversion being to plunder its heretofore ring fenced budgets for plugging up those wrecked by VSO incompetence). UK Military Airworthiness is still dysfunctional and compromises UK Air Power to this day.
PS I didn't know Sir John Grandy was involved in the BOE, he'd have been long retired by 1994/5 and about 82.
Other have mentioned ACM Sir Michael Alcock, ex RAF Chief Engineer. Readers of David Hill's various books about the dire effects on UK Military Airworthiness due to VSO actions (and inactions) will be familiar with his name. Whether they be Engineers, Aircrew, or Administrators, VSOs are simply people, like the rest of us. It is by their actions that they should be judged. That holds true for both the present and past RAF leadership. There is nothing inherently good or bad about engineers any more than there is about aircrew.
Like LFH I would commend all David Hill's books. If you were never told much about airworthiness in training (I certainly wasn't!) his expertise and experience of the system will be an eye opener and reveal the cover up of deliberate VSO subversion of airworthiness that the Star Chamber has invoked since the mid 90s (the subversion being to plunder its heretofore ring fenced budgets for plugging up those wrecked by VSO incompetence). UK Military Airworthiness is still dysfunctional and compromises UK Air Power to this day.
The following 3 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
having delved deeply into post strike war planning, there was no plans to shoot the injured survivors. Those badly affected by radiation were to have been left to their fate in the zones that were too contaminated. No one was coming to rescue them.
IIRC "Wargame" was set outside the worst hit areas. I seem to remember in the furore that the writers claimed that there was some evidence that it had happened in certain situations in Germany late in the war.
But then they would say that.
I can't believe that anyone would be mad enough to write that down on a piece of paper in the UK.
But then they would say that.
I can't believe that anyone would be mad enough to write that down on a piece of paper in the UK.
I have read this thread with interest. Cards on the table, I am 71, retired and served from 17 to 55 years old with a 3 year gap. So I no doubt fall into the category of an old fart, who knows nothing and is out of touch with the modern RAF's world.
I consider that an important word often neglected and that has sadly fallen into disuse is standards.
Shadwell
I consider that an important word often neglected and that has sadly fallen into disuse is standards.
Shadwell
The following 3 users liked this post by cheekychimp:
Unfortunately, that is where your argument falls down. These people with long hair, beards, tattooed necks etc etc are conforming to the standards laid down in Kings Regulations. They may not be to your standards, or even mine (currently RAF Regt FS with 36 years in) but, like it or not, they are what the RAF want. They all know it's ridiculous in uniform, they are just taking advantage of stupid rules. Times change, the airmen of 1918 would have mocked the airmen of 1948 for being undisciplined slackers. Harsh as it sounds, the day you leave the gate is the day your opinion is just hot air.
How long before the King's Colour Squadron ceases to excel with its impeccable appearance and drill?
The following 4 users liked this post by langleybaston:
"How long before the King's Colour Squadron ceases to excel with its impeccable appearance and drill?"
Is there any connection between impeccable drill and war fighting ability?
I can think of a lot of scruffs who hammered beautifully turned out units. The original SAS, the Chindits, the Boers, the Israeli Army, the Taliban come to mind - a bit short on smartness but a lot more lethal
Is there any connection between impeccable drill and war fighting ability?
I can think of a lot of scruffs who hammered beautifully turned out units. The original SAS, the Chindits, the Boers, the Israeli Army, the Taliban come to mind - a bit short on smartness but a lot more lethal
[QUOTE=Asturias56;11472795]"How long before the King's Colour Squadron ceases to excel with its impeccable appearance and drill?"
Is there any connection between impeccable drill and war fighting ability?
Probably, but of course the connection is not inevitable. Scruffy soldiers can be a useless rabble, and bullsh1t bandits can run away at the first contact.
What does play a part in war fighting is esprit de corps and self-esteem, some of which stems from discipline, self discipline, reputation and the ability to turn on the swank. ARRSE abounds with inter unit bragging.
The unique role of the RAF [except the regiment] detaches slightly from the army logic, which may be at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
But surely every serving and retired member of this forum has some pride in the KCS on parade? [Has the title formally changed from QCS ......... some strange change/ don't change titles abound, like King's Troop RHA, which remained so throughout our late Queen's reign].
Is there any connection between impeccable drill and war fighting ability?
Probably, but of course the connection is not inevitable. Scruffy soldiers can be a useless rabble, and bullsh1t bandits can run away at the first contact.
What does play a part in war fighting is esprit de corps and self-esteem, some of which stems from discipline, self discipline, reputation and the ability to turn on the swank. ARRSE abounds with inter unit bragging.
The unique role of the RAF [except the regiment] detaches slightly from the army logic, which may be at the heart of the discussions in this thread.
But surely every serving and retired member of this forum has some pride in the KCS on parade? [Has the title formally changed from QCS ......... some strange change/ don't change titles abound, like King's Troop RHA, which remained so throughout our late Queen's reign].
"I can think of a lot of scruffs who hammered beautifully turned out units. The original SAS, the Chindits, the Boers, the Israeli Army, the Taliban come to mind - a bit short on smartness but a lot more lethal"
It's a bit difficult to remain smartly turned out in the desert, jungle, veldt, desert, mountains.
It's a bit difficult to remain smartly turned out in the desert, jungle, veldt, desert, mountains.
I have generally found that the level of polish on a pilots boots increases in an inverse proportion to their tactical ability. Likewise the ironing of flying suits (ironing in creases in a flying suit indicating a significant probability of strapping in facing backwards)
The following users liked this post:
"I can think of a lot of scruffs who hammered beautifully turned out units. The original SAS, the Chindits, the Boers, the Israeli Army, the Taliban come to mind - a bit short on smartness but a lot more lethal"
It's a bit difficult to remain smartly turned out in the desert, jungle, veldt, desert, mountains.
It's a bit difficult to remain smartly turned out in the desert, jungle, veldt, desert, mountains.
There's something in these points, there are plenty of images from the Second World War particularly, Fighter pilots wearing part civilian clothes, paisely, diced and polka dot cravats etc. Then yes, the LDPG, as the SAS originally were, with their beards and vagabond appearance, there was a reason for the latter and somehow the former just seemed to make the image of the steely eyed Ace. But none of them would look like that on parade, only in their place of work where the circumstances weren't so much accommodating as demanding. If you've ever seen, and I'm sure many of you have, at least once, the old 1960 film, Tunes of Glory. There is the current acting up CO, Lt Col Sinclair (Alec Guiness) and his definitve replacement, Lt Col Barrow (John Mills). The former maintains his selection of regimental traditions, Whisky drinking champoin and qualified piper etc. He's also up from the ranks, Barlinnie, Boy Piper and wartime commission with a DSO and an MM to go with all his campaign medals. His replacement Barrow, Eton and Oxford, Sandhurst from the start, expert on Jungle warfare, Sandhurst lecturer and spent most of the war as a POW having been surrendered in Singapore. He has no gallantry awards, but through no fault of his own.
The first half hour of the film sees Barrow accompanied by Sinclair and others inspecting the Battalion and finding faults with improperly dressed bandsmen, Tam o'Shanters instead of the regulation Glengarry., tardy training periods and worst of all a rancorious dance by the officers on his arrival. Sinclair tries to interject with, well we have a wee tradition in this regiment Colonel, I let the band wear pretty much much as they like, as was common during the war. The last sentence says it all, ponderous dress regulations went out the window, there just wasn;t the time or really the facilities to try and enforce parade ground regulations. This was the difference between troops in the field and those in peacetime with a different order of proceedings. But this is all different to now, the choice of hair length and grooming as depicted in the photo of the Sergeant, shows someone going out of his way to shove to fingers up at the past and the long standing culture and traditions of,military service. As has been said by CheekyChimp, I don't actually believe that even Wigston really wants this, but that he feels, as pr00ne implied, its the only way to retain skilled people. Therefore, Wigston, who certainly wasn't brought up in an RAF which reflects the one he seems to have attempted to cultivate, has pursued a path of what he sees as mere practicalities, if we are to maintain a standing Navy/Marines, Army and Air Force at all.
FB
The first half hour of the film sees Barrow accompanied by Sinclair and others inspecting the Battalion and finding faults with improperly dressed bandsmen, Tam o'Shanters instead of the regulation Glengarry., tardy training periods and worst of all a rancorious dance by the officers on his arrival. Sinclair tries to interject with, well we have a wee tradition in this regiment Colonel, I let the band wear pretty much much as they like, as was common during the war. The last sentence says it all, ponderous dress regulations went out the window, there just wasn;t the time or really the facilities to try and enforce parade ground regulations. This was the difference between troops in the field and those in peacetime with a different order of proceedings. But this is all different to now, the choice of hair length and grooming as depicted in the photo of the Sergeant, shows someone going out of his way to shove to fingers up at the past and the long standing culture and traditions of,military service. As has been said by CheekyChimp, I don't actually believe that even Wigston really wants this, but that he feels, as pr00ne implied, its the only way to retain skilled people. Therefore, Wigston, who certainly wasn't brought up in an RAF which reflects the one he seems to have attempted to cultivate, has pursued a path of what he sees as mere practicalities, if we are to maintain a standing Navy/Marines, Army and Air Force at all.
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 24th Jul 2023 at 19:17.
, I don't actually believe that even Wigston really wants this, but that he feels, as pr00ne implied, its the only way to retain skilled people. Therefore, Wigston, who certainly wasn't brought up in an RAF which reflects the one he seems to have attempted to cultivate, has pursued a path of what he sees as mere practicalities, if we are to maintain a standing Navy/Marines, Army and Air Force at all.
FB
FB
The regs appear in AP1358 RAF Dress and Appearance, and not in King’s Regulations.
Here is a link to similar:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles...ies-for-women/
Interestingly, it seems to automatically refresh the Twitter link to Sir Rich rather than Wigston who made the policy switch. Not great really, because that now means that Sir Rich is linked to previous policy announcements on Twitter!
As for the pony tail - sometimes it looks smart when platted or cornrowed - but as a bog standard pony tail it often looks scruffy and sometimes with a beret more like a Davy Crockett hat!
Pride in appearance needs to meet some basic standard. I would suggest that the photo of this NCO, in an ill fitting shirt with a fat back hanging over the chair, with their unkept beard and scraggy plaits half way down their back, falls below that standard that AP1358 seeks to set:
This is the link to the beard policy - they don’t appear to meet that either. https://www.raf.mod.uk/serving-famil...l-hair-policy/
Here is a link to similar:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles...ies-for-women/
Interestingly, it seems to automatically refresh the Twitter link to Sir Rich rather than Wigston who made the policy switch. Not great really, because that now means that Sir Rich is linked to previous policy announcements on Twitter!
As for the pony tail - sometimes it looks smart when platted or cornrowed - but as a bog standard pony tail it often looks scruffy and sometimes with a beret more like a Davy Crockett hat!
Pride in appearance needs to meet some basic standard. I would suggest that the photo of this NCO, in an ill fitting shirt with a fat back hanging over the chair, with their unkept beard and scraggy plaits half way down their back, falls below that standard that AP1358 seeks to set:This is the link to the beard policy - they don’t appear to meet that either. https://www.raf.mod.uk/serving-famil...l-hair-policy/
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 25th Jul 2023 at 15:52.
This is what the current regs state - further guidance is given in AP3393 Vol 4 for religious purposes.
So in the case of the NCO above, then anyone who works with them are probably not upholding the intent of the AP above. It is quite clear that they break the policy on beard length, hair style and long hair policy.
Finally, my mistake, there are lines in KR209 and KR210 about beards too.
0152. Hair – All Personnel. Canerows, cornrows, twists and braids are permitted. Hair worn in this manner is to be no longer than the bottom edge of the collar of the Service jacket if worn down and must be tied back if longer. All personnel (who chose to) may wear a turban of approved Service pattern and colour, instead of uniform headdress. The appropriate cap badge is to be fitted centrally on the turban. When necessary to wear specialist head gear such as combat helmet or flying helmet, the turban is to be removed and the hair can be covered using a hair net. SP may wear a head wrap when required for occupational reasons (e.g. stewards, technicians, engineers). The head wrap is to be dark in colour with no branding or patterns. These are not to be worn on ceremonial events. Thin hair bobbles, bands or elastics (no wider than 10mm) may be worn with working dress but must be of a similar colour to the hair or black. Hair clips, grips etc may be worn but must be plain and of a similar colour to the wearer's hair or black. Hair beads or hair adornments / jewellery are not to be worn when in uniform. Fabric covered hair bobbles (scrunchies) may be worn with working dress but must be inconspicuous and either of a similar colour to the hair or black. These are not to be worn on parade. Aircrew are not to wear hair clips and grips when flying for health and safety purposes.Hairdressing and Cosmetics - Men.
0153. Hair – Men. The hair of the head is to be well cut and trimmed, permitting service headdress to be worn (“topknots” which compromise the wearing of headdress for example are not permitted). Men may not grow their hair long, unless for religious / medical reasons or to wear their hair iaw para 0152 above. Where it is permitted for hair to be grown longer, hair longer than the bottom edge of the collar must be tied back neatly in either a bun, a single plait or a ponytail. The plait or ponytail should aim to be no wider than the wearer’s head (width of the hair after the hair tie for the ponytail or width of the plait) and where this is unavoidable not beyond mid shoulder. It should be no longer in length than where the top of the belt would be if worn in No 2 Uniform. Where hair is grown as a tenet of adherence to faith, it is permissible for the hair to not comply with the characteristics set out above. All hairstyles iaw this policy must enable service headdress to be worn correctly. Sideburns are to be short, well-trimmed and are not to extend below a line running through the mid-point of the ear. Regardless of hair length, no separate sections of hair may be shaved (this does not mean individuals may not shave their entire head, or have different lengths of hair (i.e. 2 on sides and 4 on top), merely that there must not be an extreme difference in length between the side of the hair and top of the head). This list is not exhaustive, but no patterns; shapes; “undercuts” or fully shaved sides, long on top styles are permitted. Individuals whose hair does not comply with this policy (with the exception of those who have done so for any religious or medical reasons) are to be ordered to modify their hair such that it does. If the hair is dyed or highlighted, the colour chosen is to be natural and in a uniform shade appropriate to the individual. Any individual who does not comply or who is repeatedly found to breach the policy is to be considered for administrative action (either Minor or Major as appropriate to the circumstances). APC or RLO advice is to be sought where there is any doubt. Individual Chains of Command do not need to approve hair styles (such as cornrows and canerows), but are responsible for ensuring that this policy is adhered to.
0153. Hair – Men. The hair of the head is to be well cut and trimmed, permitting service headdress to be worn (“topknots” which compromise the wearing of headdress for example are not permitted). Men may not grow their hair long, unless for religious / medical reasons or to wear their hair iaw para 0152 above. Where it is permitted for hair to be grown longer, hair longer than the bottom edge of the collar must be tied back neatly in either a bun, a single plait or a ponytail. The plait or ponytail should aim to be no wider than the wearer’s head (width of the hair after the hair tie for the ponytail or width of the plait) and where this is unavoidable not beyond mid shoulder. It should be no longer in length than where the top of the belt would be if worn in No 2 Uniform. Where hair is grown as a tenet of adherence to faith, it is permissible for the hair to not comply with the characteristics set out above. All hairstyles iaw this policy must enable service headdress to be worn correctly. Sideburns are to be short, well-trimmed and are not to extend below a line running through the mid-point of the ear. Regardless of hair length, no separate sections of hair may be shaved (this does not mean individuals may not shave their entire head, or have different lengths of hair (i.e. 2 on sides and 4 on top), merely that there must not be an extreme difference in length between the side of the hair and top of the head). This list is not exhaustive, but no patterns; shapes; “undercuts” or fully shaved sides, long on top styles are permitted. Individuals whose hair does not comply with this policy (with the exception of those who have done so for any religious or medical reasons) are to be ordered to modify their hair such that it does. If the hair is dyed or highlighted, the colour chosen is to be natural and in a uniform shade appropriate to the individual. Any individual who does not comply or who is repeatedly found to breach the policy is to be considered for administrative action (either Minor or Major as appropriate to the circumstances). APC or RLO advice is to be sought where there is any doubt. Individual Chains of Command do not need to approve hair styles (such as cornrows and canerows), but are responsible for ensuring that this policy is adhered to.
Finally, my mistake, there are lines in KR209 and KR210 about beards too.
"The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept" looks like no-one is bothered in his CoC or on Station. The horror !!!
The following users liked this post: