ARmy Rumour SErvice

**mushroom** · 12-10-2011, 21:24

Just right for convicts and other ranks and those sorts, but weally not for chaps!

**BedIn** · 13-10-2011, 00:54

Happy as a hat;

Ruined? If I loose my legs, things are ruined. If I loose my family in an RTA, things are ruined.

If someone tells me to tuck my top in, things aren't ruined.

Let's: a) get a sense of perspective and b) just stop.

**happy_as_a_hat** · 13-10-2011, 07:39

Originally Posted by BedIn

Happy as a hat;

Ruined? If I loose my legs, things are ruined. If I loose my family in an RTA, things are ruined.

If someone tells me to tuck my top in, things aren't ruined.

Let's: a) get a sense of perspective and b) just stop.

Two of your examples point to your life being ruined.

One points to a uniform being ruined.

I was clearly talking about the uniform being ruined; not anyone's life. I think you missed the perspective there, not me.

**BedIn** · 13-10-2011, 08:01

Roger. I freely admit to being drunk when I posted that.

But it doesn't really matter that much, does it?

**happy_as_a_hat** · 13-10-2011, 09:25

In the grand scheme of things, no.

But what does matter is the ignorance of those pushing for the uniform to be tucked in just because in their opinion looking smart (or rather, looking their version of smart) is more important than wearing the uniform/using the equipment as it's designed to be used.

These are the same people who reject most other innovation and always drag out the old "this is how we've always done it and this is how it'll stay". They're the same people who love their office jobs, look down on you for not wanting to spend every waking moment at your desk, think going on AT should count as leave, etc etc. We all know fuckers like this and we all hate them with a passion.

Stuck in the mud attitudes piss me off, and this call to tuck a jacket in when it's designed to be worn loose is the latest embodiment of these attitudes; so I'm jumping on the outrage skateboard, getting angry and making snide remarks to/about the tucked in gang (and anyone I suspect of being a member!) by way of protest.

**CrapSpy** · 13-10-2011, 09:42

Here, here. I suspect they were the same crowd who insisted the gas parts of an SA80 were polished to such an extent that they didn't work anymore!

**mushroom** · 13-10-2011, 09:42

As one who doesn't care whether it is in or out I think your attitude is just a tad over the top.

It is a matter of opinion as to what looks smart. The question to be asked is how is it designed to be worn out, it's just a top?

People may disagree with you old son but there is no need to call everyone who does so attitudinous.

**cloudbuster** · 13-10-2011, 09:47

Originally Posted by mushroom

attitudinous.

Mind if I use that?

**brighton hippy** · 13-10-2011, 10:14

like the officer on telic who declared people couldn't wear issued Softie suits on stag as they were soldiery as if anyone cared at 2am and strangely he never turned up to check.
the yanks wear acu or whatever they are replacing it for everything unless its dress uniform.
unless PCU is made unobtainium do that barrack dress working dress etc etc not needed.

**2_old_4_this_$h1t** · 13-10-2011, 12:11

The original information issued on PCS MTP stated something along the lines of (you can still find the document on DII): Lightweight Jacket. A shirt that can be worn over a thermal or sweat-wicking layer. It can be worn either tucked into trousers or loose depending on environmental conditions.

So it could be argued that those wearing it tucked in are wearing it as designed (but not in line with the current CDS's direction). It will no doubt all be decided by some committee eventually and we will get back to our traditional approach to wearing uniform in a non-uniform fashion accross arms and services!