Army Numbers Fall Again

One here that probably illustrates why soldiers and certain officers are able to abuse the biff chit system. From the intro to a study commissioned within 20 Armd Bde this year:

Results A total of 842 downgraded soldiers were identified from a held strength of 3827 personnel.
Fcuck me! That's 22% of one of our most significant war fighting formations not something REMFy.

Several factors that slowed an individual’s recovery pathway were identified. They mainly relate to soldiers being lost to follow-up through lack of active case management.
In other words, they are diagnosed by external medical teams which the RMO feels they should not challenge or overturn. All patient has to do is rock up to the Medical Centre for an extention of Biff Chit, local medical assumes higher medical will determine treatment and return to full fitness. Meanwhile higher medical has lost touch with that particular patient. Similar in the NHS where a GP will hand a case off to a hospital Consultant, GP not actively involved from then on.

Conclusions MSKI is responsible for most downgraded personnel at Brigade level. The distribution of principal conditions is similar to previous studies looking at recruits and individual units.

The creation of a rehabilitation troop, delivering active case management, can reduce the number of soldiers leaking out of the rehabilitation pipeline.
I think Stacker has a point and has probably dealt with soldiers who have 'leaked out of the rehabilitation pipeline'

£20 if you want the full report 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade downgrade study: epidemiology of principal conditions and plugging leaks in the rehabilitation pipeline | Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps
 
One here that probably illustrates why soldiers and certain officers are able to abuse the biff chit system. From the intro to a study commissioned within 20 Armd Bde this year:



Fcuck me! That's 22% of one of our most significant war fighting formations not something REMFy.



In other words, they are diagnosed by external medical teams which the RMO feels they should not challenge or overturn. All patient has to do is rock up to the Medical Centre for an extention of Biff Chit, local medical assumes higher medical will determine treatment and return to full fitness. Meanwhile higher medical has lost touch with that particular patient. Similar in the NHS where a GP will hand a case off to a hospital Consultant, GP not actively involved from then on.



I think Stacker has a point and has probably dealt with soldiers who have 'leaked out of the rehabilitation pipeline'

£20 if you want the full report 20 Armoured Infantry Brigade downgrade study: epidemiology of principal conditions and plugging leaks in the rehabilitation pipeline | Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps
Or...UHC could be done better. I can’t think of and Signals unit that survive pushing troops into a “rehab troop”.
 
You need to wind your necks in and have a look at what I said previous to this.

I specifically said that if someone on a biff chit is allowed to play sports, then by actively stopping them playing sports because they are on a Biff Chit, then you would be having an interview without coffee.

A CO may well decree that ALL those on Biff Chits will parade at the gym to work under the muscle mechanics instead of attending a sports afternoon.

A buck f**k troop Sgt will never make that call.

You appear to be bluffing.
 
Or...UHC could be done better. I can’t think of and Signals unit that survive pushing troops into a “rehab troop”.
I think you may fall into the group, working the system. I imagine the idea of a Corps rehab Troop whose aim is to return troops to full fitness or facilitate a speedy discharge may be something of a worry to you.
 
I think you may fall into the group, working the system. I imagine the idea of a Corps rehab Troop whose aim is to return troops to full fitness or facilitate a speedy discharge may be something of a worry to you.
If I could get a med discharge after 24 years I’d take it, as would the majority of others. My Corps is spread all over the world so to to think that we could generate a Corps rehab troop tells me that your head is up your ARSSE.
 
I merely point out that nowadays there are recognised allergies that were unheard of 30 years ago. If as little as 1% of the demographic you're trying to recruit from suffers from these, it reduces the pool of potential recruits.
Name any that affect 1% of the demographic ..... or 0.1% ..... or 0.01% ..... or 0.001%.
Also there are the changes in risk management over the years, with current practice seemingly loathe to chance passing someone as " fully fit" before they're ready to resume 100% duties.
..... but we're not talking about "fully fit" - just fully un-fit.
In the current age of measuring and recording / reporting, 20% non deployable is probably about right.
"right" for what???

An Army that's supposed to be 80,000 (but isn't), that's tasked as if it's 80,000 but where 20% are excused doing their job and are carried by the remainder?
Historically the British army has often suffered more casualties through sickness and injury than through battle damage.
..... and "historically" units that have been 20% injured / undeployable, whatever the reason, have been deemed no longer fit for role or to be tasked.
Earlier, these could have been moved to static units/ depots or similar, but those postings disappeared in the 90s.
No they didn't! The number of similar postings ("static units / depots or similar") is, in proportion to the size of the Army, just as high as it ever was. This is totally untrue.
The army could, of course, discharge some on medical grounds.
But then potential recruits read of troops being binned for injuries, and your recruitment nosedives again.
Pure conjecture, and very short term even in the worst case. Retention would almost certainly go up, as long as tasking was reduced to match reduced numbers until those discharged could be replaced by those capable of doing the job.

If retention goes up, so does recruiting - the best (and worst) motivator for recruiting is undoubtedly those serving.

Sorry, but you're no longer looking for excuses but just desperately clutching at straws.
 
Last edited:
Downgraded by the Army’s doctors against medical standards set by the Army. With a lower threshold both in terms of medical case and level of decision making since John served.
Anything to support that, Bob?

Or are you just assuming the Army's set the threshold lower while it's actually exactly the same?
The question I asked and which remains unanswered is what is a reasonable, expected level of downgrading in a unit? As I said, I’ve no idea whether it’s 5%, 20% or more. It’s certainly not zero. And it’s certainly not an arbitrary target that can be decided on the basis of opinion.
Well, what's "expected" is obviously 20% since that's what it's been for a decade or so!

What's "reasonable" depends on the tasking. Reduce your tasking by 20% and you can have 20% downgraded without it affecting operational ability, morale, etc. Fail to reduce it and you can't.

If current training and employment practices create 20% downgraded against current medical standards, then that’s what you have to expect unless you change one of the variables.
... ummm ... yes, Bob, that's rather the point. Training is, quantifiably, resulting in less injuries so that only leaves employment practices.
 
Last edited:
It beats me how an organisation that spends as much on educating and training its leaders and managers can get this stuff so wrong.
Seriously, Bob?

Hint: years of practice!

Throw in the "risk passes" that have been getting through RMAS for over three decades, and that a quarter of those passing through RMAS in the last three years have actually failed AOSB (see "SlimCo"), and it really shouldn't be that surprising.
 
Last edited:
Say the man who beleives its victimisation when biffs can't do sport.
Go ahead and point out where I said that. You absolute belllend.
So you cannot quote me saying what you claim.
No idea why stacker can't quote you as this is what you posted:
Let's call it victimisation. Whatever way you want to dice it or call it. One of the 20% would have reported you and your arrse would have been grass.
Edit: 21st beat me to it. Damn.
 
No idea why stacker can't quote you as this is what you posted:


Edit: 21st beat me to it. Damn.
Instead of jumping in with selective quotes, go back to here Post 7812.

If you exclude people from partaking in sport, because they are on a Biff Chit. Even though their Biff Chit allows it, that is discrimination.
Or you could try Post 7905

I specifically said that if someone on a biff chit is allowed to play sports, then by actively stopping them playing sports because they are on a Biff Chit, then you would be having an interview without coffee.

A CO may well decree that ALL those on Biff Chits will parade at the gym to work under the muscle mechanics instead of attending a sports afternoon.

A buck f**k troop Sgt will never make that call.
Crawl back into your hole.
 

Latest Threads

Top