Army WO3s and RAF WO1s

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not an example, it’s what is available. Nothing more.
Keep digging.
So it's "not an example" ?

Odd.

It clearly was when you quoted the link before:
From a link in the document he posted Re Notts Police:

The services we charge for cover four areas (snip)
  • goods and service to other individuals and bodies, for example copies of reports
That does say "for example", doesn't it? ... and you did quote the link correctly, didn't you?
 
Last edited:
No, ignoring it because I'm not remotely interested in BAOR orbats in Jul 89, never have been, and have never commented on them.
You should take a look Johnny, marks the end of the Cold War era, the evolution of the British Army in Germany from an occupying force in 1945 to a formidable manoeuvre warfare organisation equipped and trained to the very highest standards. Although not to the level of B Coy, 2 Queens clearly.

But next to the topic of WO3s and Thai related sex I can see why it would be a bore.
 
I accept that I may be confused. Help simplify it for me. Did the lads end up paying more as a result of your intervention, or not?
Not necessarily confused, but I think you've assumed that this was all part of the police 'fine', police adjucitated 'damages', etc.

It wasn't. It was nothing to do with the police, not discussed with the police, not enforced by the police, not paid to the police, etc.

'Yes' they paid 'more' but not to the police - direct to the girl. She may have had to give some to the police later, I don't know.

The second time was different, obviously, as then the police knew exactly what to ask for.
 
You should take a look Johnny, marks the end of the Cold War era, the evolution of the British Army in Germany from an occupying force in 1945 to a formidable manoeuvre warfare organisation equipped and trained to the very highest standards. Although not to the level of B Coy, 2 Queens clearly.

But next to the topic of WO3s and Thai related sex I can see why it would be a bore.
Jul '89 marked the end of the Cold War? Really?

All the history books must be wrong too ... the conspiracy deepens.
 
No, ignoring it because I'm not remotely interested in BAOR orbats in Jul 89, never have been, and have never commented on them.
You are not interested because you are a belter and it highlights your complete lack of Infantry basics.

Let me reiterate for you.

The normal / usual make of an Infantry Battalions Support Company is:

Recce, Mortars and Anti - Tank

There are some exceptions to this of course. These are exceptions not the rule.
 
You are not interested because you are a belter and it highlights your complete lack of Infantry basics.

Let me reiterate for you.

The normal / usual make of an Infantry Battalions Support Company is:

Recce, Mortars and Anti - Tank

There are some exceptions to this of course. These are exceptions not the rule.
Considerably more interested in clog dancing, TBH.

Sp Coy orbat in BAOR in '89? I'm not disputing that and never have, and I doubt anyone else has either. As I said, Orbats were mandated and that was what was mandated.

Different places, different times, different orbats.

Not exactly hard to understand. Except for you ... understandably.
 
Not necessarily confused, but I think you've assumed that this was all part of the police 'fine', police adjucitated 'damages', etc.

It wasn't. It was nothing to do with the police, not discussed with the police, not enforced by the police, not paid to the police, etc.

'Yes' they paid 'more' but not to the police - direct to the girl. She may have had to give some to the police later, I don't know.

The second time was different, obviously, as then the police knew exactly what to ask for.
It was a simple yes/no question, John.

Your intervention resulted in the lads paying more than they were originally asked for. Yes or no?
 
So it's "not an example" ?

Odd.

It clearly was when you quoted the link before:


That does say "for example", doesn't it? ... and you did quote the link correctly, didn't you?
Try reading it properly. Stupid.
 
It was a simple yes/no question, John.

Your intervention resulted in the lads paying more than they were originally asked for. Yes or no?
Not forgetting assisting them getting away with rape.
 
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Stopped shafting little boys?

Stopped drinking bleach? etc, etc. etc, etc ...

Yes or no?
That has to be one of the weakest responses I've ever seen on ARRSE. You can only have done one of three things.

1. Acted to increase the amount of money paid.

2. Had no impact on the process at all.

3. Acted to decrease the amount of money paid.

Which one was it?
 
That has to be one of the weakest responses I've ever seen on ARRSE. You can only have done one of three things.

1. Acted to increase the amount of money paid.

2. Had no impact on the process at all.

3. Acted to decrease the amount of money paid.

Which one was it?
As above.

The amount of money paid for what?

What process?

As I've tried to explain, repeatedly, there was no police interest in any compensation for the rape. It had nothing to do with the police. There was no 'amount'. I couldn't increase or decrease something which didn't exist. It wasn't part of any 'process'.
 
As above.

The amount of money paid for what?

What process?

As I've tried to explain, repeatedly, there was no police interest in any compensation for the rape. It had nothing to do with the police. There was no 'amount'. I couldn't increase or decrease something which didn't exist. It wasn't part of any 'process'.
So you didn't need to be there. Another example of your irrelevance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top