Army Numbers Fall Again

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
One might say that was a ******* stupid thing to do.
Although I believe that only applies to the core meal, which is strange as the extra choices appear to be **** as well.
Depends where you eat I think. I've been to a few places where the non-core food is pretty good, but they've all been pretty expensive and still no higher than the quality I remember from the old system.
 
As Ive already shown that some legal people define extortion as theft its hardly emotive is it?
A solution would be to stop forcing soldiers to pay for shit.
Forcing soldiers to pay for things is different to outright theft. Hence those on here suggesting that the benefit to the PRI/Corps etc fund that then benefits the soldier make it worthwhile.

It is an important distinction but it does not make forcing troops pay for things they need morally right.
 
PAYD is slightly more expensive than the previous system but was always bound to produce a worse product unless the MOD vastly increased the subsidies. Moving a contractor from a large set number of meals a day to an unknown, but much smaller, number inevitably drives up the unit cost of those meals. As the MOD has fixed the daily food charge so the contractor can't increase cost, they don't have much choice but to drop quality instead.
I think it was simply down to someone’s shite maths. The project team could have used a true unit cost as opposed to theoretical. Who knows, maybe they and it was too expensive?
 
Depends where you eat I think. I've been to a few places where the non-core food is pretty good, but they've all been pretty expensive and still no higher than the quality I remember from the old system.
There are few cook houses I’ve eaten in where I’ve been unhappy with what I can get for £4.

Stand fast Somme barracks.
 
Depends where you eat I think. I've been to a few places where the non-core food is pretty good, but they've all been pretty expensive and still no higher than the quality I remember from the old system.
FYB has got a good selection of photos of some gopping food provided today.
 
Forcing soldiers to pay for things is different to outright theft. Hence those on here suggesting that the benefit to the PRI/Corps etc fund that then benefits the soldier make it worthwhile.

It is an important distinction but it does not make forcing troops pay for things they need morally right.
Legal people appear to disagree with you.
I can suggest to my neighbour that he pays me 100 quid and he keeps his windows, which is to his benefit, but i dont think the old bill would see it that way.
Ive been over this many, many times about these funds unless you take out more than you put in, you will never benefit, if you do take out more than what you put in, you are taking someone elses money.
 
FYB has got a good selection of photos of some gopping food provided today.
A6386F2C-330E-4FBC-B72C-685CEA8BD151.jpeg

An example. Brecon apparently. No points for presentation! :grin:
 
Theft implies a one way transaction, you take from me or you make me give you something. You seem to be a bit light on your feet when it comes to mentioning that the soldier/officer receives something in every case, and if you follow the money often something of greater value than the original transaction which implies that is wasn’t theft.
What a load of ******* shit, you just cant help yourself can you? You have to justify it, dont you?
**** knows what these people were whinging about, their drive got some bitumen and chippings


If someone came to your house and said hes going to wash your windows and make you pay 50 quid whether you like it or not, would that be okay? After all you are getting something for it.
 
What a load of ******* shit, you just cant help yourself can you? You have to justify it, dont you?
**** knows what these people were whinging about, their drive got some bitumen and chippings


If someone came to your house and said hes going to wash your windows and make you pay 50 quid whether you like it or not, would that be okay? After all you are getting something for it.
Your analogies are shite. It’s closer to a pyramid scheme with a guaranteed prize with a value close to the unit cost of the donation and a lottery ticket with a 75% of winning.
 
Legal people appear to disagree with you.
I can suggest to my neighbour that he pays me 100 quid and he keeps his windows, which is to his benefit, but i dont think the old bill would see it that way.
Ive been over this many, many times about these funds unless you take out more than you put in, you will never benefit, if you do take out more than what you put in, you are taking someone elses money.
They do not. Theft is different from extortion as abh is different to gbh. Neither pleasant but the terms are not interchangeable despite both causing harm.

The funds are set up in good faith because the army is hamstrung about how it can raise money.

That does not make it acceptable to force people to pay for rank slides they are forced to wear.
 
Genuine question, surely a hackle is a must have for you? We’re you issued any or did you have to buy them all?

That would be like my old lot trying to insist that soldiers bought their own cherry backing for the cap badges; it’s part of the headdress so surely it must be issued.
There are issued hackles but believe me, no one in his right mind would wear one. They are absolutely bogging, think a red/white version of the abortion that the 'King's Fusiliers' stuck in their berets in 'Soldier, Soldier'. It would have been better if the proper, feather hackles had been issued but at 50p a chuck, it wasn't exactly a ball breaker. Even the CO had to buy them. And i still have the metal (as opposed to staybrite) capbadge that i bought more than twentyfive years ago. It looks miles better than the issued badge.The biggest problem was catching the f*****g PRI shop open.
 
Having been there recently, the food in all cook houses was excellent. This may be an aberration. Not that it makes that food acceptable
Presumably the plate in question contains a Shish Kebab with some Tarka Daal on the side. Probably very tasty. Given this photo was for the benefit of FYB members, no doubt some typical Squaddie artistic licence was applied!
 
Your analogies are shite. It’s closer to a pyramid scheme with a guaranteed prize with a value close to the unit cost of the donation and a lottery ticket with a 75% of winning.
Its theft you dense ******, if some bloke came around your house and demanded 50 quid for a chance to be in a lottery which you might win. would that be ok?
 
They do not. Theft is different from extortion as abh is different to gbh. Neither pleasant but the terms are not interchangeable despite both causing harm.

The funds are set up in good faith because the army is hamstrung about how it can raise money.

That does not make it acceptable to force people to pay for rank slides they are forced to wear.
So the highly educated in law, solicitors are wrong?

If the funds are "set up in good faith" why has the army stopped the recruits from having their money nicked?

The funds are there because they always have been, only umpteen years ago when they started the swindle, soldiers didnt have much choice and couldnt tell the wider public that the CO takes their money without their consent.

For many of the things the Army forces its soldiers to pay for it doesn't need to (Rank slides, belts), Individuals should pay for directly (AT, functions), the MOD should pay for (Tracksuits if they are deemed essential) or (and this might come as a shock) just ask (without threats) the lads if they want to chip in.
 
So the highly educated in law, solicitors are wrong?

If the funds are "set up in good faith" why has the army stopped the recruits from having their money nicked?

The funds are there because they always have been, only umpteen years ago when they started the swindle, soldiers didnt have much choice and couldnt tell the wider public that the CO takes their money without their consent.

For many of the things the Army forces its soldiers to pay for it doesn't need to (Rank slides, belts), Individuals should pay for directly (AT, functions), the MOD should pay for (Tracksuits if they are deemed essential) or (and this might come as a shock) just ask (without threats) the lads if they want to chip in.
I actually consulted a legal friend about this matter. He told me it would never go through the courts as theft but as extortion.

If you asked for theft charge for a tracksuit you’d not get it through the courts.
 
I actually consulted a legal friend about this matter. He told me it would never go through the courts as theft but as extortion.

If you asked for theft charge for a tracksuit you’d not get it through the courts.
Oh, so it's not theft then...and there was me believing Stacker.
 
I actually consulted a legal friend about this matter. He told me it would never go through the courts as theft but as extortion.

If you asked for theft charge for a tracksuit you’d not get it through the courts.
The courts are reluctant to deal with most low level crime.
I cant see extortion as a separate crime on google, its appears to be refered to as blackmail in the UK which is covered by the Theft Act.
 
Oh, so it's not theft then...and there was me believing Stacker.
The lawyers are wrong as well are they?
Funny how you seem content that extortion would be better than plain theft.
 

Latest Threads

Top