Thread: Savings Measures - the Official Line

Originally Posted by OllieReeder

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year�—

15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!�

If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.

If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...

Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.

What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?

edited for mong spelling.

Originally Posted by Deadreckon

Originally Posted by OllieReeder

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year�—

15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!�

If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.

If only he was in the URNU - could have the makings of a future First Sea Lord...

Ollie, I'm open to correction but even members of the armed forces are entitled to correspond (within limits, OPSEC, PERSEC etc.) with their representatiove in parliament in a private capacity. I'm sure the author couldn't realise that Dr. Fox would read it into the public record.

What is specifically mentioned in the DIN is contributions to forums such as this. Hands up anyone who has sought permission to post on ARRSE?

edited for mong spelling.

Fair enough DR - one could say it depends on whether he wrote to Dr Fox in his capacity as a constituency MP (unstated) or his capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary (inferred but not explicit). One of those grey areas that the DIN, I suspect, deliberately avoids; bit like the whole issue of Reservists as Parliamentarians. If you ever want to read about REAL bloodshed in the House over the TA, I commend to you the saga of 2Lt Duncan Sandys MP in 1938, outing the chronic failures of equipping the TA Anti-Aircraft Division. Hore-Belisha, the War Secretary, wanted to prosecute him under OSA, whereupon the Speaker countered with a threat of Contempt of the House for Hore-Belisha if he tried doing Sandys for words spoken under Privilege. Mexican standoff ensued.

Anyway - let us therefore not charge the young man with breaching the DIN, but nevertheless commend him for his debut performance...

Originally Posted by OpsSuper

Originally Posted by BORO_LAD

TSC(A) and TSC(B) will still happen, what you have been told is wrong, question your CoC

Hmm....That's proper confusing... Will need to check I didn't get wrong end of stick. ROSO seemed pretty clear mind....

BTW, are you still local to Teesside or exiled?

I live in the NE, whats your unit, you can pm me if you prefer

OldSnowy's Hansard is interesting
Ainsworth did not come up with this
(Mr. Ainsworth: “He is a regular and therefore cannot be trusted�?—I think that we have to guard against that! I have said to him that I know he is a regular, and I have got my eye on him, but he is running the Army and appears to be a pretty competent guy. I have to take some advice about his priority, and I agreed with him)
We are held in contempt, we always were "STAB", and always will be.
" I need some dosh off the system"
"No problem I'll take it off the STABS"
Such a parcel of rogues in one nation

Originally Posted by Bug-out!

Originally Posted by DjDangle

I don't see why people are so concerned. Blame the government and not the TA.

TA will still get 100% of my support and if that means reduced training for the next 6 months, so be it, nothing that will affect PT in your own time...

DJ - I agree with you entirely.

My unit will be running some training early next year, but until then I can't see what the fuss really is about. So we won't have any weekends during November to January, but these are usually poorly attended given the weather and some are a little "jaded" after camp. :P

Unless you are keen/have no life or are a bounty hunter

wrong bounty hunter just dose the minimum so thay dont mined

Originally Posted by Plant-Pilot

Originally Posted by Rocket_Scientist

If as the times says there are about 19k trained members of the TA who would normally get their 1k + bounty.....can you see where this is going?....that would add up to remarkably like the 20million missing from our pay budget. Wouldnt it have been much less damaging to eliminate bounties this year than stop for 5 months ?

I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.

You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.

No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.

Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly

Originally Posted by sig1

Originally Posted by Plant-Pilot

Originally Posted by Rocket_Scientist

If as the times says there are about 19k trained members of the TA who would normally get their 1k + bounty.....can you see where this is going?....that would add up to remarkably like the 20million missing from our pay budget. Wouldnt it have been much less damaging to eliminate bounties this year than stop for 5 months ?

I suppose its the old "wrong pot of money" argument.

You are right, if 19,000 TA soldiers were paid a 5 year bounty of £1500, it would cost £28,500,000..... Bingo! They want a saving of £20 million. If they turn up and continue training, with pay, but give up their bounty, they make the same savings, don't suffer skill fade and don't lose soldiers from them getting disillusioned and finding something else to do with their time between now and the 10th of April.

No doubt some will complain and give up because they lose their bounty, but not as many as if they lose their pay and bounty, as some will.

Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly

This IS a joke, isn't it ???

Is it still possible to train with regulars, if the oppurtunity is there, to acheive bounty qualification, (without bieng paid for the training) or would this be seen as Bounty Hunting ?

Originally Posted by FUGAX

Is it still possible to train with regulars, if the oppurtunity is there, to acheive bounty qualification, (without bieng paid for the training) or would this be seen as Bounty Hunting ?

Yes.

Bounty hunting is just doing the minimum required for bounty.

MSR

Originally Posted by OllieReeder

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year�—

15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!�

If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.

This “DIN� does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )

Originally Posted by sig1

Originally Posted by OllieReeder

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

Let me give the House a graphic example. A young man sent me an email today. It states:
“I have always had an interest in the armed forces so at the freshers fair this year�—

15 Oct 2009 : Column 483
at King’s college—
“I jumped at the chance to join the London University Officer Training Corps, not only would I be trained by the military, develop my leadership skills but I would also get paid — always a good thing as a student struggling to pay a loan!...So after successfully getting in through the rigorous interviews and selection weekend (held in norfolk) I arrived for my first training evening, excited, keen and willing to learn! We were sat down in the hall and the Major walked out and announced bluntly — ‘There will be NO pay for any training officers this year.’ He went on to tell us about how the whole Army was facing a cut back. I think this is outrageous! We’re fighting two large wars, as training officers we should be seen as the next generation...properly respected and paid!�

If the young man quoted by Dr Fox had actually signed on, then I think we may have a splendid contender for the fastest ever breach of the Communicating in Public DIN: join the Armed Forces in the evening, email the Opposition in the morning.

This “DIN� does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )

Message from my CoC when training freeze was announced was DO contact your local MP.

Many thanks to OldSnowy for posting that. One line particularly caught my eye

... we have to try to be mindful of permanent damage to our reserves[...]. We cannot completely sell tomorrow to pay for today. However, today is the pressing need.

Originally Posted by sig1

This “DIN� does not cover this case as it is already in the public domain and it has no security classification, any one may contact their MP as long as they do not break the O,S,A it is called freedom of speech and I think many people have died to keep this so have a go at some one who is trying to damage this country not protect it.
(OTCs are your future Officers so abuse them and lose them )

The DIN does cover this case as does the OSA. The DIN covers all contributions to public debate - yes, including posting on Arrse (waves to boss and CO).

This Instruction sets out the arrangements that all MoD personnel – military and civilian – must follow if they wish to have contact with the media, or write or speak in public on Defence or related matters.

The OSA also covers this debate - it has nothing to do with "Protective Marking":

A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence

So, the question is not PM vs non-PM, it is "damaging" versus "not damaging". We saw how that went in the Damien Green case but is your "career" going to take that much to irreparably damage? The lad who wrote to his MP is probably making a privileged (therefore protected) statement - but neither you nor I are ...

As for "freedom of speech" - we're not in the States. Our entitlement is laid down in Article 11 of the ECHR, as adopted into UK law in the Human Rights Act. I draw your attention to sub-para 2 (my bolds):

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Well we could stop all retention bounties and resigning bonuses for military personal, that may save the same amount of money if they don’t like it they may leave and join the TA we will welcome them willingly

This IS a joke, isn't it ???

Listening to what my husband told me from his briefing last week this is the idea they have come up with should the regs go over manned. it's not just us TA lot that will suffer, the reg's are about to get shafted as well!

I can see them removing our Bounty payments as well as all the other cut backs. This is the 2nd time in as many months that they have reduced our buget after all and our bounty is the only thing we have left to go.

now here a question

If we the TA are not going in to our Centres to train, what will the PSAO, PSI and NRPS, Civ Staff be doing for the next months??

Playing more golf then they do now??

many be they can take our places on the next MOB service??

Originally Posted by ViperRLC

I can see them removing our Bounty payments

I can't - the major reason we have no pension entitlement is because the argue we get bounty in lieu. Stopping bounty is a can of worms they don't want to open, even without the effect on some people's motivation to train.

Andy