ARmy Rumour SErvice

We've been through this discussion more or less ad nauseam over the last three years. I would strongly recommend a quick search of Arrse and you will find a multi-multi page discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of a representative federation for the armed forces.

Just a few comments on what's been posted here so far...

First of all, BAFF is very much a 'child of Arrse'. It grew up out of discussions which took place right here in the CA forum. The fact was that three years ago, the Armed Forces had nobody speaking up for them in public and, in fact, most regular service personnel had more or less lost the right to vote without realising it. Arrse, and the group of individuals - 'No-Marks', someone just called them - who later formed BAFF launched a campaign which eventually led to a change in electoral law which made sure we weren't disenfranchised. CGS was General Sir Mike Jackson who, whatever he might have been saying to the politicians in private, kept his gob shut in public and let the public believe that everything was fine and dandy.

For those of you who have been pointing at the work of the RBL - I agree, they do an excellent job - but remember it was BAFF which first pointed out that the military covenant formed a part of Army doctrine and was being routinely broken; and it was BAFF which first brought the attention of the media to the fact that soldiers on operations were on less than the minimum wage, which led to the operational bonus.

BAFF is in its early stages: it has very little money and less than a thousand members (I don't know where Sean Rayment got that figure from, but certainly not BAFF). It does not have the resources yet to do individual case-work; it does not employ any staff (everything is done, for free, by volunteers); if we travel to meetings, we pay out of our own pockets. Despite this, simply by being there it has managed to exert influence and force the pace of change. Nobody - except opponents of the idea that service personnel should be allowed to speak up for themselves - is suggesting that it is going to be a militant trade union or anything resembling it; it is a staff association which can speak, on behalf of its members, to parliament, public and the media, and exert influence in that way. That is a model which works for a wide range of professions; I personally don't believe that we are all too stupid to make it work for us.

Finally, the Armynet poll was nothing to do with BAFF and, although we knew it was taking place, BAFF didn't seek to publicise it as we wanted to see how it would pan out, without skewing the vote. I think that 73% in favour of a federation is a pretty ringing endorsement.

The only people I can really see who would benefit from BAFF or the like would be the spineless, feckless ingrates who occasionally manage to make it through the main gate but rarely make it out of basic training because they are knobs and of no use to man nor beast

I see, so all the Squaddies disenfranchised from voting until BAFF got on the case and forced a change were spineless, feckless ingrates were they?

Or maybe you should stop looking at this already functioning federation as 0-800-Ambulance-Chasers?

Don't confuse a lack of media attention focussed on BAFF as either 'staffed by no-marks' or an organistation doing nothing. Some highly experienced people are involved in this and go about their business quietly efficiently and with a minimum of publicity.

I do not know BAFF's stance on this , but to my mind, taking on any Government head-to-head publicly over issues, is a recipe for having your legs shot off.

You'll get further with a kind word and a good sword than just a good sword.

So rather than spout off, with your mindimage focussed on Scargill and the like, why not ask BAFF what they are trying to achieve for you?

And in support of m'learned friend Cpunk's remarks, this has been done to death, and is available on the Arrse search facility.

I've been privileged to be involved pretty much from Day 1 and am proud to be a member of the Executive Council, just to declare an interest. It's good to see the debate rekindling here on Arrse and I think we all welcome the opportunity to take it forward. That said, as has been noted, a number of the issues floated upthread have already been done to death in a previous, multi-year discussion. Assuming that some of the posters above haven't had the chance to delve back into what was a huge thread and in order to box off some the things which have already been established, for the sake of everyone's convenience, here are the salient points:

a. BAFF emerged with huge reluctance. A number of us here on Arrse debated the need for an association very thoroughly before coming to the conclusion that something needed to be done. Nothing would thrill me, personally, more than the need for BAFF to disappear. I don't expect that day to come any time soon.

b. BAFF isn't a union and doesn't seek to become one. Withdrawal of labour and working to rule, to quote only two key behaviours, are not on the agenda and never will be. What BAFF is, is a professional association, formed to defend the interests of its collective membership and to support the chain of command, which for reasons we all understand, has been unable in the last few years to make the case for terms and conditions and treatment which historically it has been able to make.

c. BAFF isn't a gang of senior officers. The Executive Council ranges from serving Senior NCO to field officer, from retired JNO to senior officer. SSgt/WO and Major are the most represented ranks.

d. To echo cpunk above, Sean Rayment seems to have exercised a degree of license with our membership.

e. Oviously BAFF has to be paid for by its membership - what's the alternative, taking MoD money? The whole point of being an independent (but supportive) voice is that it's independent - i.e. not dependent upon anybody or anything other than itself.

f. The BAFF website. Sure, it's not glitzy, but it does the job. The limited amount of funds at the Federation's disposal is better spent on other things, for now.

g. Funding generally. No-one's getting rich, in fact, the Executive Council is significantly out of pocket, on average by a few hundred pounds, although I must pay significant tribute here to hackle, our Executive Chairman, who's essentially working full-time, for no pay and without expenses paid, on Federation business. All of us have day jobs and all of us give at least time and in some cases cash to the Federation. I'm not looking for anyone's gratitude here, just making the point that this isn't a scam.

h. The legal advice line is provided by a very supportive and helpful firm of solicitors. A number of individuals have found it very useful, I gather.

i. Back-channel communications from senior officers (all three services) and politicians confirm that the idea is not unwelcome in those quarters. I wouldn't claim any credit for CGS's very courageous public statements, which are entirely down to his own integrity and moral courage, but would like to think that the context-setting BAFF and others have been doing both in the media and in political circles made it easier to contemplate taking the drastic action he did in going public.

I'd ask those readers here who are new to the subject to take a deep breath and read in a bit before jumping into the debate with blood in their eyes.

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

The only people I can really see who would benefit from BAFF or the like would be the spineless, feckless ingrates who occasionally manage to make it through the main gate but rarely make it out of basic training because they are knobs and of no use to man nor beast

I see, so all the Squaddies disenfranchised from voting until BAFF got on the case and forced a change were spineless, feckless ingrates were they

Or maybe you should stop looking at this already functioning federation as 0-800-Ambulance-Chasers?

Don't confuse a lack of media attention focussed on BAFF as either 'staffed by no-marks' or an organistation doing nothing. Some highly experienced people are involved in this and go about their business quietly efficiently and with a minimum of publicity.

I do not know BAFF's stance on this , but to my mind, taking on any Government head-to-head publicly over issues, is a recipe for having your legs shot off.

You'll get further with a kind word and a good sword than just a good sword.

So rather than spout off, with your mindimage focussed on Scargill and the like, why not ask BAFF what they are trying to achieve for you?

And in support of m'learned friend Cpunk's remarks, this has been done to death, and is available on the Arrse search facility.

Perhaps I didn't get my message across very well, my apologies, my words obviously didn't convey my sentiment as I intended.

That BAFF has already done some good is beyond question the point I was trying to make is that it should not try to get too involved with the day-to-day machinations of the military as this may clog up the system and make it harder for battalions to operate effectively.

I'm not sure where you get the 0800 cr4p from or indeed that I have a mindset that BAFF would be some Scargillian organisation dedicated to the overthrow of the military as we know it, once again, if I have given that impression my apologies.

My thoughts are that, if you erode a regiment's rights to look after 'its own' you may also inadvertently make things harder for the individual. If you take away the hierarchy’s ability to dish out minor punishments for minor offences then you are left with the situation where a soldier may end up with company or regimental conduct sheet entries for relatively minor offences which would hitherto have merely attracted extras or such like.

If BAFF sets out its stall as a lobby group looking at being of benefit to the Army as a whole and sets out to make changes at the highest level then I’m sure it will be carrying out a very beneficial service on behalf of not only its members but the Army as a whole. There are many individuals and organisations who care passionately about Britain’s Armed Forces and who work hard in the background to bring about beneficial change, I’m sure that BAFF number amongst them.


My worries are that in order to garner more membership and funds from its members that it should drift towards individual case representation and the situation ends up where no decision is made without lengthy consultation between the regiment, BAFF, SSAFA and any other interested organisation.


When I made the comment about the feckless etc (as I suspect you knew) I was not referring to the vast majority of soldiers but to the one or two whom seem to take it upon themselves to try to change time honoured practices and principles of the Army so that they benefit not the majority but purely themselves.

There has recently been uproar that a disenfranchised soldier may stand to be awarded up to £400,000 at an Industrial Tribunal in Leeds. Now if BAFF had acted as a mediator or go-between in a similar vein to ACAS then such action may have been avoided (although, to be honest with such a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow one doubts it) but would any soldier really have been well served if BAFF had backed her actions and won such a payout which is clearly an insult to those whom have suffered serious damage in battle?

This is my humble opinion, I sincerely hope that you don’t mind me having it, right or wrong, because that would be a bit Scargillian wouldn’t it? I am always willing to have my mind changed by reasoned and well formed argument and have learned a lot from, particularly Cpunk’s post, please don’t become so crusading that you lose sight of the possibility that any discussion is not necessarily directly opposed to the aims and intentions of BAFF but merely a feeling of the way by one who is as yet unsure and just wants to weigh the pros and cons for himself.

Originally Posted by Markintime

That BAFF has already done some good is beyond question the point I was trying to make is that it should not try to get too involved with the day-to-day machinations of the military as this may clog up the system and make it harder for battalions to operate effectively.

A fair point and one which is at the centre of discussions within BAFF. We think that the most likely outcome, when BAFF is closer to achieving critical mass, is to have a regional structure rather than a unit one. It would be intolerable for most commanders to have some kind of 'shop steward' second guessing every move he made, and I doubt that many members of BAFF would like that either. The real answer is to get involved in BAFF by joining online here and help to shape BAFF from within.

Originally Posted by cpunk

Finally, the Armynet poll was nothing to do with BAFF and, although we knew it was taking place, BAFF didn't seek to publicise it as we wanted to see how it would pan out, without skewing the vote. I think that 73% in favour of a federation is a pretty ringing endorsement.

So would I if it was 73% of the army instead of 73% of (currently) 3720.

Having read the measured responses from cpunk, PTP and Giao, and some other stuff, I think I may have been confusing BAFF with UKNDA, and wish to retract my comments.

Originally Posted by Weissbier

There is already an organisation which represents the interests of the Service and ex-Service Community - The Royal British Legion (TRBL). Look at what it has achieved already, not least most recently with its Broken Covenant Campaign. It also provides access to independent legal advice to all serving and ex-serving personnel, including those who are not members of TRBL.

Agreed Weissibier - the RBL do stirling work. The vast majority of the RBL's work, being in relation to those no longer serving. A careful analysis of the campaign's history and timing, will very clearly show that this was a result of threads on ARRSE, and those connected with the RBL, pushing it through an organisation, that was established, and had the necessary marketing strength to do it.

The pity is that the RBL is picking up the pieces, in too many cases, where the government appears to shirk its responsibility. Talk to the County Field Officers and Caseworkers about the workload, and types of support they are giving to ex-forces pers, and you start to see clearly how representation for those currently serving is long overdue.

The "union" debate has been done to death here before - a search on BAFF should yield enough to clarify standpoints.

For those serving, and at a time when the armed forces are more stretched now, then at any point for a generation, the need for a federation appears greater then ever previously. Well done the Daily Telegraph for reporting the poll on ArmyNET. - Possibly Tom Newton-Dunne will voice his opinion - being from the forces favourite, etc.?

In the meantime, good luck to BAFF in addressing the issues that they do.

Yes, there will be distractors, and those, for whom BAFF cannot address the concerns of. Irrespective of our individual views, BAFF should be supported - if not for those serving now, than for those, who will serve in the coming years.