Originally Posted by Dread

Fair enough! You'll learn to be a true cynical bástard in a couple of years...

There is already (and always has been) a system in place for getting rid of mongs and biffs. The problem is that takes a bit of leadership by the CoC to use it: interviews, remedial PT, action plan, 3 month warnings, etc, etc.

I have no trouble with the Army getting rid of knackers. I have no problem with them getting rid of wounded lads who will never be combat fit again: however the soldiers must be paid their dues. If wounded then they must get a medical discharge (and the associated monies): not put under massive pressure to sign documents that will cost them tens of thousands of pounds, all because the RSM and CO are bullying and threatening him.

The system rarely if ever works, I have personally known Sgts who have been on the biff since they were toms (And the injuries were not caused by bayonet charging the enemy).
If the Army was full of fit lads doing their normal job then MCP would be a bit suspicious, at the moment its something like 20% of the infantry can't deploy in their normal role and I suspect its far higher in the support arms. I cant think why a fit/decent soldier will be chosen to get the boot when there are so many donwgraded/admin cases to choose from.

Well it did happen before and a lot of good, fit soldiers were also kicked out for no reason other then their pensions.

One case I know was a personality clash with his OC, The Maj abused the system for his own spiteful means. Luckily the soldier had his head screwed on and his OC was not to bright.
Guess which one is still serving :D


List were sent from Glasgow and some CO's, the good ones, did try to fight for their blokes however, the line from the Desk officers were "you WILL pick x number of soldiers this quarter by x date. If you don't we will pick them and it will not do you or your soldiers career any favours" I still have the telex on file.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3056720.ece

A “manning control scheme” was used from the late 1990s until 2002, in an attempt to cut the MoD’s pension liability by preventing some soldiers serving to the point at which they received an immediate pension.

But its deliberate intent to cut pension payments was exposed in 2002 after a series of cases in which highly experienced soldiers with extremely good reports were thrown out at a time when the army was desperately short of such men.

Ministers ordered civil servants to stop using the scheme to discharge good soldiers and it has not been used since. It has been revived specifically to control the numbers of Gurkha soldiers

Originally Posted by kennys-go-nad

Well it did happen before and a lot of good, fit soldiers were also kicked out for no reason other then their pensions.

One case I know was a personality clash with his OC's and he abused the system for his own spiteful means. Luckily the soldier had his head screwed on and his OC was not to bright.
Guess which one is still serving :D


List were sent from Glasgow and some CO's, the good ones, did try to fight for their blokes however, the line from the Desk officers were "you WILL pick x number of soldiers this quarter by x date. If you don't we will pick them and it will not do you or your soldiers career any favours" I still have the telex on file.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3056720.ece

A “manning control scheme” was used from the late 1990s until 2002, in an attempt to cut the MoD’s pension liability by preventing some soldiers serving to the point at which they received an immediate pension.

But its deliberate intent to cut pension payments was exposed in 2002 after a series of cases in which highly experienced soldiers with extremely good reports were thrown out at a time when the army was desperately short of such men.

Ministers ordered civil servants to stop using the scheme to discharge good soldiers and it has not been used since. It has been revived specifically to control the numbers of Gurkha soldiers

That's exactly what happened to me and 8 other Cpls from 1RTR back in the day; we were hardly biffs having just passed the retention criteria when 2 regts went to 1. I pointed out that I was 30 days from promotion to Sgt in 4RTR when promotion was frozen and was told it was actually because myself and the others were approaching the 12 year half pension point that we were getting the heave. The "retreads", those who had not reached the standard for the amalgamated regiment and had gone to other units and trades, were exempt from MCP action!
So don't believe for a minute that it was an exercise in removing dead wood.

I'll give you a clue as my Regiment got rid of quite a few soldiers under MCP: it was a cynical excuse to get rid of average/ok soldiers before their pension points. It was a cynical excuse to get rid of soldiers injured in the line of duty (e.g. breaking a leg on exercise to such an extent that the soldier will never be fit again) without paying them a medical discharge. Why? Because MDing a soldier is expensive (almost 7-8% of what an average MP claims each year in expenses).

MCP were shut down as the Courts rightly showed the the CoC placed immense pressure on soldiers to accept the change in terms of service, at tremendous personal cost to the soldiers concerned (loss of pension, loss war pension, loss of gratuity, loss of income support, loss of medical support, etc.

Kenny has it bang-to-rights: this is all about saving money.

I totally agree. Unfortunately history is likely to repeat itself and a sickening abuse of loyal soldiers will take place in order to save money.
It was clear to me that this would happen from the defence secretary's speech in parliament a couple of months ago when he talked about cutting numbers in accordance with soldiers contracts. Contracts that are of benefit and apply only to the crown by the way. Soldiers have NO contract of employment.
What makes this whole thing worse is that a large number of serving soldiers believe that as long as it doesn't affect them personally then it doesn't matter. As long as it's the downgraded or a particular year of service that is being targetted then thats their tough luck. If you don't fight for other peoples rights then who will be left to fight for yours? Nobody is invincible and EVERYONE can get injured in operations or training.
Do we really want people scared to take risks on operations, exercise or adv training just in case they get injured lose their pay, pension and career?
I doubt this will actually save money anyway. Where does the government think all these people are going to go? At the moment they are doing something useful for their pay, or should be. The taxpayers will still have to pay for them except now they will be depressed jobseekers on benefits. Cynical? maybe.

Originally Posted by swooper

What makes this whole thing worse is that a large number of serving soldiers believe that as long as it doesn't affect them personally then it doesn't matter. As long as it's the downgraded or a particular year of service that is being targetted then thats their tough luck. If you don't fight for other peoples rights then who will be left to fight for yours? Nobody is invincible and EVERYONE can get injured in operations or training.
Do we really want people scared to take risks on operations, exercise or adv training just in case they get injured lose their pay, pension and career?
I doubt this will actually save money anyway. Where does the government think all these people are going to go? At the moment they are doing something useful for their pay, or should be. The taxpayers will still have to pay for them except now they will be depressed jobseekers on benefits. Cynical? maybe.

Maybe one day someone can come aslong and fight the corner of those who are fit but keep getting spammed with jobs due to biffs who can't go on exercise or tour but manage well enough to do sport.
Do you think having CWI will prevent you getting most indoor civvie jobs? Do most civvies have PFA/AFT tests for people to do their job?
You sound like you are getting your excuses in for biffs before MCP kicks in.

Originally Posted by stacker1

You sound like you are getting your excuses in for biffs before MCP kicks in.

Nope. Simply pointing out that people like you think that it's not your problem. Until it's you getting screwed.

Originally Posted by swooper

Originally Posted by stacker1

You sound like you are getting your excuses in for biffs before MCP kicks in.

Nope. Simply pointing out that people like you think that it's not your problem. Until it's you getting screwed.

Well we will have to see won't we? People like me have for years had to endure lazy fat gits poncing of the army anything that trims down their number can only be a good thing.

Staker1, do you believe from the links provided that in the past it was managed correctly?

I agree if there are 500 "fat lazy gits" in the system then Manning Control is for them, however, I would also question why the C of C did not use the tools that are at their disposal to admin discharge those you mention years ago.
The fear at present is a case that Manning control could be abused and like before used on the wrong people simply to cut the pension commitments.

Were you serving stacker when Manning Control was used?

Originally Posted by kennys-go-nad

Staker1, do you believe from the links provided that in the past it was managed correctly?

I agree if there are 500 "fat lazy gits" in the system then Manning Control is for them, however, I would also question why the C of C did not use the tools that are at their disposal to admin discharge those you mention years ago.
The fear at present is a case that Manning control could be abused and like before used on the wrong people simply to cut the pension commitments.

Were you serving stacker when Manning Control was used?

I had previously thought MCP was last used in the early 90s, apparently it was in in 2002, I didn't notice it at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8580961.stm

What do you mean if there are? In my sqn alone I have 20 people who have failed their BMI (Not all of them are fat but most are) At least 20 (some of whom failed the BMI) will be on remedial PT for failing very basic tests, and then there is a large amount of home only biffs although they are outnumberd by biffs who have limited deployability. Aside from the biff we have a few admin cases as well, 500 seems a bit of a low number. Why would you question why the C of C didn't get rid of them years ago? Its quite obvious that they didn't.
It sounds like it wasnt managed correctly in the past, if the figure was 10000 then maybe there would be something to worry about. I am confident the army could discharge 500 P7 home only, without even having to look at the rest of the army.

The reason I question it is there and away's has been procedures to get rid of those clogging the system. If your fat knackers are failing basic and nothing is being done about it, you do have PTI's its down to your units C of C weakness in management.
There are still three month Warning Orders then QR 9.414 then AFB130 A. So why are they still in.