just to pick this apart a little bit more...

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

wrong.

the maroon beret is not a regimental article of the Parachute Regiment.

it is an article of any individual serving in 16AA brigade.

seeing as ACF counties come under their own brigades, they do not come under 16 AA brigade.

Therefore your fabulous attempt to look clever has failed due to your greater interest in putting down the ACF than your interest in Army Dress Committee publications.

With regard to wearing the maroon beret I think you may find that Army Dress Regulations (All Ranks) states:

All ranks of the Parachute Regiment, both Regular Army and TA, wherever serving with all orders of dress.

OK, so not ACF then.

All ranks posted out of 16 Air Asslt Bde cease to wear the airborne forces beret, except Qualified other ranks serving in RA and RE parachute units and recruiters.

No ACF there either then.

Exceptionally those posted directly from 16 Air Asslt Bde to RMAS as permanent staff may continue to wear the maroon beret provided that they are qualified (ie entitled to wear para wings).

No ACF there either.

Personnel serving with recruiting teams may wear the green RM beret or the maroon airborne forces beret provided that they are qualified in respect of the green beret or their last tour was with 16 Air Asslt Bde in respect of the maroon beret

And no ACF there.

So, the relevance, lies where?

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

give me a reason why ACF shouldn't wear it, when the rest of the ACF can and do wear their regimental berets?

Or alternatively you could just fuck off and stop spouting shite about things you know very little about i.e. the British Army.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

But, if you must insist that the maroon beret is not an item of qualification nor is it there to show that you are serving in the brigade...

give me a reason why ACF shouldn't wear it, when the rest of the ACF can and do wear their regimental berets?

frankly, I couldn't give a flying fcuk if they did or not.

But if it is no longer an item marking qualification, and it is worn by all those in the parachute regiment, tell me why ACF PWRR should wear a PWRR beret, why ACF RIFLES wear a RIFLES beret, why ACF AAC wear an AAC beret, but ACF PARA should wear dark blue?

I don't see where the link has broken, if the above is correct, that's all.

I've not expressed any opinion. Do I want to see ACF types cutting about in Maroon tops? Do I fcuk! Im just questioning the logic.

Because each regt/corps says what its badged cdts and their CFAVs can wear of the Regimental Family's shiny bits and in this regard PARA says 'no' to cdts/CFAVs not wearing a maroon lid unless "they are qualified (ie entitled to wear para wings)."

You need to get your head around the fact you wear what your badged regt/corps allows you to wear and although you may be on the lowest rung of the Regimental Family, it's as an 'in-law, not a blood relative as your real Regimental Family is the ACF with its own badge, own stable belt and own banner doubling up as a 'colour'.

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

give me a reason why ACF shouldn't wear it, when the rest of the ACF can and do wear their regimental berets?

Or alternatively you could just fuck off and stop spouting shite about things you know very little about i.e. the British Army.

Oh oh look Im spouting shit.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

give me a reason why ACF shouldn't wear it, when the rest of the ACF can and do wear their regimental berets?

Or alternatively you could just fuck off and stop spouting shite about things you know very little about i.e. the British Army.

Oh oh look Im spouting s***.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

We all heard your opinion ealier, quoting rules and regs for something which was shown to be WRONG, but you're still digging to save face, nice try, you're not getting anywhere because

a. You are in the wrong.
b. You know nothing compared to the likes of Spaz.
c. You're drunk, a mong and a fcuking civie who's never done a real day's service in uniform!

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Oh oh look Im spouting s***.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

*Yawn* See you tomorrow on the QM's forum where no doubt you will be offering your extensive knowledge to soldiers deploying on ops.

Originally Posted by StickyToffeePudding

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

But, if you must insist that the maroon beret is not an item of qualification nor is it there to show that you are serving in the brigade...

give me a reason why ACF shouldn't wear it, when the rest of the ACF can and do wear their regimental berets?

frankly, I couldn't give a flying fcuk if they did or not.

But if it is no longer an item marking qualification, and it is worn by all those in the parachute regiment, tell me why ACF PWRR should wear a PWRR beret, why ACF RIFLES wear a RIFLES beret, why ACF AAC wear an AAC beret, but ACF PARA should wear dark blue?

I don't see where the link has broken, if the above is correct, that's all.

I've not expressed any opinion. Do I want to see ACF types cutting about in Maroon tops? Do I fcuk! Im just questioning the logic.

Because each regt/corps says what its badged cdts and their CFAVs can wear of the Regimental Family's shiny bits and in this regard PARA says 'no' to cdts/CFAVs not wearing a maroon lid unless "they are qualified (ie entitled to wear para wings)."

You need to get your head around the fact you wear what your badged regt/corps allows you to wear and although you may be on the lowest rung of the Regimental Family, it's as an 'in-law, not a blood relative as your real Regimental Family is the ACF with its own badge, own stable belt and own banner doubling up as a 'colour'.

No I don't need to get my head round it. I am absolutely 100% comfortable with it, and would really rather not have CFAVs cutting around in maroon berets. I was merely questioning the logic of it, I have absolutely no desire for it WHATSOEVER and you must have re-read my post somewhere.

If I had it my way, there would be an ACF capbadge, an ACF stable belt, ACF colours and no TRF as they're of fcuk all use to anybody anyway. And people's rank slides would need to have ACF so big on it that it could be seen from 20,000 miles away AT NIGHT. Really, I do dislike the attempts people in the ACF make to verge themselves against the regular army. At least people could actually relate to their uniform and be proud of it, and not get false visions about what part they play in their affiliated unit's structure.

I raised my questions:

'Why should ACF RIFLES / ACF PWRR / etc wear the RIFLES/PWRR insignia on berets and belts, but not the TRF', and
'Why should ACF RIFLES / ACF PWRR / etc wear the RIFLES / PWRR berets, but ACF PARA wear blue ones?'

and when you said,

Originally Posted by you

Because each regt/corps says what its badged cdts and their CFAVs can wear of the Regimental Family's shiny bits and in this regard PARA says 'no' to cdts/CFAVs not wearing a maroon lid unless "they are qualified (ie entitled to wear para wings)."

you answered it nicely.

I have no support for ACF trying to look like the regular Army, no support for the ACF trying to imitate things that people have earned. In fact, I think there's far too much already.

I merely questioned the reasoning.

There was no need for the 'go back to what you know' shite.

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Oh oh look Im spouting s***.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

*Yawn* See you tomorrow on the QM's forum where no doubt you will be offering your extensive knowledge to soldiers deploying on ops.

im still waiting for this intelligent answer to arrive.

not seen, not seen.

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Oh oh look Im spouting s***.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

*Yawn* See you tomorrow on the QM's forum where no doubt you will be offering your extensive knowledge to soldiers deploying on ops.

im still waiting for this intelligent answer to arrive.

not seen, not seen.

Yet you claim the post two above this one answers your questions.

You really are a fucking idiot.

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Originally Posted by spaz

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

Oh oh look Im spouting s***.

Or I'm asking a question that you have no reasonable answer to. So you just put abuse up instead.

Well that really puts a great big +1 on your intelligence level doesn't it.

Stick to bigtiming it to children.

See above for my opinion, prick.

*Yawn* See you tomorrow on the QM's forum where no doubt you will be offering your extensive knowledge to soldiers deploying on ops.

im still waiting for this intelligent answer to arrive.

not seen, not seen.

Yet you claim the post two above this one answers your questions.

You really are a fucking idiot.

I really couldn't be bothered to point it out to the little t!t, the irony would be lost on the drunken mong!