ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by spaz

The trouble is, is that d_p was about 7 years old, 15 years ago, the gangly, nodad cunt.

All piss and wind.

I may or may or not told it. To it's face.

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

It's just that as the TA has evolved in the last 10-15 years, you're starting to see people in SNCO ranks who've actually got the operational experience to support that rank.

lol agreed with most of your post too

What you've said above is in theory correct but practicality (in my current corps). It goes along the lines of "I thought you'd have progressed (and equipped) beyond HF and VP in the time I've been away on tour ..... fcuk this for a game of soldiers, I'm off"

Originally Posted by polar

lol agreed with most of your post too

What you've said above is in theory correct but practicality (in my current corps). It goes along the lines of "I thought you'd have progressed (and equipped) beyond HF and VP in the time I've been away on tour ..... fcuk this for a game of soldiers, I'm off"

DP has never been anywhere near the Army.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

Anyone with a driving licence can drive four norgies and some cheap bread and marge to the ranges.

It's in one of the SOinC Policy Directives you need to have either B+E or C+E to get 3 stripes in the TA RSigs

(well it might have said class 1 in the PD)

Originally Posted by The_Snail

He's full of shit. The closest he's been to the Army is trying to chat me up or get twatted.

He's still right.

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

Is there any written reason why you can't send somebody from 3 stripes to 1 stripe simply because they no longer fulfil the role that their rank represents? The sceptic in me would go as far to suggest companies are scared of dumping people down a few ranks (or not promoting others) simply for retention as they don't want to see CSgt Bloggs get in a huff and bin it altogether for being handed a lance jacks rank slide and told to put his mess kit on eBay.

One very big reason; employment law. Pretty much an open and shut case for unfair dismissal. Even if the MOD have an exemption under employment law, it would take about one week before a question was raised in Parliament by the Opposition. Oh, and did someone mention age? Discrimination on the grounds of age...?

It would be nightmare trying to phrase the necessary wording in the relevant Act that allowed the TA to "bust" an SNCO for no good reason other than that which you suggest (which is woolly enough as it is), and not give an open door to ANY officer demoting any NCO/SNCO/WO for whatever reason they wanted.

There is a further objection, re-read your last paragraph (not quoted). Essentially, what it does is jeopardise the career path of anyone above Cpl. It also opens a can of worms called redundancy, in which the position is surplus. If the job can be done by someone else, then the position is redundant.

If there is a good case for 'pushing down' skills/responsibilities to a junior position, then that should be identified as a Corps(?)-wide review of unit manning, and the appropriate restructuring action taken.

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

Just a point for discussion - do the 'enablers' actually need to be SNCOs? They get paid more, they get the benefits of mess life & facilities, etc. Surely if it's a case of "your entire continued existence in the TA is based on the fact that your driving license looks like the alphabet" or "your entire continued existence in the TA is based on your CBRN / SAA instructors quals" you can't really warrant SNCO pay and benefits? Is there any good reason why they couldn't be the Coy (everything) driver with 1 or 2 stripes?

Is there any written reason why you can't send somebody from 3 stripes to 1 stripe simply because they no longer fulfil the role that their rank represents? The sceptic in me would go as far to suggest companies are scared of dumping people down a few ranks (or not promoting others) simply for retention as they don't want to see CSgt Bloggs get in a huff and bin it altogether for being handed a lance jacks rank slide and told to put his mess kit on eBay.

It's just that as the TA has evolved in the last 10-15 years, you're starting to see people in SNCO ranks who've actually got the operational experience to support that rank. Seeing the enablers drawing the same (or indeed more) pay and benefits must be a bit demotivational for those who've earned the rank in line with what would be expected of their regular counterparts.

I'm all for keeping people on if they've got skills that are in demand and vital to the continual operation of the unit. What I'm not for is continuing to pay them and offer them benefits as SNCOs when their offerings to the unit do not exceed those of the junior ranks.

You got your license for driving the cadets in the 4 tonner yet? You sprout shit on all things military, yet you can't say it's from serving eh!

Originally Posted by The_Snail

He's full of shit. The closest he's been to the Army is trying to chat me up or get twatted.

Fuck off you waster. I've yet to see you add something useful to this debate. PS I would rather chat up a rabies ridden roadkill fox corpse.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Perhaps you could stay awake in your next Values and Standards lesson.

You can fuck off too. You are the epitome of what this thread is all about.

Originally Posted by spaz

The trouble is, is that d_p was about 7 years old, 15 years ago, the gangly, nodad cunt.

It's irrelevant, I'm not claiming to have seen the entire modernisation of the TA.

I am, however, saying that during my time in the TA, I was 'led' by both types of SNCO: those who had got on the rank ladder during the beer-club days, been retained (and even promoted) because the OC feared they'd have a hissy fit and leave if demoted / not further promoted, solely because they held some useful qualifications / licenses; and those who had joined later on, served on several op tours, climbed the rank ladder through experience and skill, and who the unit actually struggled to retain.

The last point is something I think is worth mentioning further - I actually know of several people who have earned their 3rd stripe through genuine merit, operational experience and good leadership; and have left because the TA does not offer them enough value for their time, leaving them to work alongside cold war warriors who don't have a clue, and are radically sub-standard when compared to the people said individuals have served with on tour. The disappointment and frustration when they go from a slick and efficient operational environment with regular SNCOs, then back to a slow and inefficient training environment with outdated wasters wearing big ranks is not worth the bother, and they bin it.

The irony is that it seems that the 'enablers' don't offer the TA very good value, whilst it's the TA that doesn't offer good value to the genuine guys. And unfortunately I fear that unless the TA has a proper clear out of it's dead wood, these 'enablers' will be able to clog up the top end of the system for some time yet, simply as there is nobody coming up from underneath to replace them.

Originally Posted by tiny_lewis

One very big reason; employment law. Pretty much an open and shut case for unfair dismissal. Even if the MOD have an exemption under employment law, it would take about one week before a question was raised in Parliament by the Opposition. Oh, and did someone mention age? Discrimination on the grounds of age...?

It would be nightmare trying to phrase the necessary wording in the relevant Act that allowed the TA to "bust" an SNCO for no good reason other than that which you suggest (which is woolly enough as it is), and not give an open door to ANY officer demoting any NCO/SNCO/WO for whatever reason they wanted.

I don't think it does though. If you are employing somebody in a role, and they are not fulfilling that role, employment law does NOT protect them from being dismissed from that role, or being 'busted down' to a role that suits the service they are providing.