Good Wavell Room Article - The Army has 'a culture of apathy and dishonesty'

It happens the other way as well, despite numerous reminders they managed to keep paying me full time for something over six months when I demobbed from a tour, during that period and the whole year of my mobilised service they also failed to deduct any PAYE, I can't believe that any civilian system would allow the latter in particular. The Cheque that I wrote to repay the pay element got copied an displayed on the admin office wall for a time.
Count yourself luck they let you pay it off in oner, in the regulars the normally force you to pay it back (from your pay) in 4 days of gross pay even if you are prepared to pay the whole lot back.
You would have thought that it would be mandatory to offer the soldier the opportunity to pay it all back if they wanted to.
 

Yokel

LE
If regular pay is generally handled well, but Reservist pay is not as it varies from month to month, does it reflect a wider and more serious malaise? The system struggles with unexpected events and changes in circumstances - or is it unfair to claim that?

What about doing nothing because there is no policy in BR3?

How does the system cope with the paradox that the less expected a message is the more information it contains, yet the more likely it is to be ignored?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
True.

Average time from reservist's date of first attendance, to first paysheet, should be an easily-calculated metric. Even a random sampling of (say) twenty pre-COVID reserve recruits. I wonder if anyone dares gather that particular statistic?

What figure from the sample would indicate "all good, storm in a teacup over a rarity"? Does >95% within the month sound about right, or would you prefer a higher or lower figure?

Meanwhile, what figure would indicate "if they can't even get that right, what else are they screwing up?"
No idea - it's nothing to do with me! Why not FOI the MOD and ask the question of Glasgow (in)directly?

My experience of TA pay back in the 1970s was pretty good too - I attested in the August of 1977 and got paid a couple of weeks later. Until a year or two ago I had kept all my pay statements from the TA - I then binned them when I retired from the Army.

I did keep my RMAS mess bills from 1979/80 though - horrific reading.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
We are talking 1976 and it happened because it happened to me.
I'm not saying it didn't happen but to be taken in one go, the deduction would have to be less than that which would have caused you hardship, even in 1976.

And in any case - why didn't you go to your AO (delete/insert title as appropriate)? I used to pay loads of blokes weekly 'off the bank' and watch out for exactly that type of thing only a few years afters after your experience.

It's a bit like when you award fines or stoppages - it's quite clear what the limits are to avoid hardship.

You obviously had a different view of hardship than the Army.
 
I'm not saying it didn't happen but to be taken in one go, the deduction would have to be less than that which would have caused you hardship, even in 1976.

And in any case - why didn't you go to your AO (delete/insert title as appropriate)? I used to pay loads of blokes weekly 'off the bank' and watch out for exactly that type of thing only a few years afters after your experience.

It's a bit like when you award fines or stoppages - it's quite clear what the limits are to avoid hardship.

You obviously had a different view of hardship than the Army.

I witnessed several people getting hammered for the total amount in one go in the late 90s and early 2000s.
If they were a pad they might have got some sort of payment to tide them over (which obviously had to be repaid) if you were a singlie, tough luck, the food and accommodation was provided.
 
My point was more that, in a much larger army, we had pools of ORs of various levels of experience who could be put to use when required.
Options for change decided they were an unnecessary cost, and binned them, along with all the other reductions.
I'm questioning how to justify hundreds of posts/ appointments filled by officers, each desperately pleading the importance of the job, all on good salaries and perks, yet rarely producing any tangible improvements.
Get rid of a few, and if nobody notices, they weren't required anyway.
I suspect for many posts, while the postholder may be a colonel or brigadier, the actual output of the post is often actually done by people much lower down.
I doubt the one star i/c movements, for example, actually books ships/ aircraft/ trucks him/ herself?
I have been frustrated on more than one occasion following a rejection after an application for additional tradesmen (OR6-7) in various teams I have been in, only to read that a department has been created or new contract signed that will generate absolutely flute all other than noise. Have a wander around Stratcom and you'll see where the pound note are being used as fuel.
 
I witnessed several people getting hammered for the total amount in one go in the late 90s and early 2000s.
If they were a pad they might have got some sort of payment to tide them over (which obviously had to be repaid) if you were a singlie, tough luck, the food and accommodation was provided.
I don't think that there's anything hardwired to stop a large payment being taken out, even now.
 
I don't think that there's anything hardwired to stop a large payment being taken out, even now.

It was always 4 days gross wages in the last few years, I dont know if it an automatic JPA thing or the RAO dept has to initiate it.
Although as I found out its not perfect as other debts/overpayments can be taken.
 

bob231

War Hero
That's depressing to hear.

@Bubbles_Barker - I'll grant you that APC / "The System" might handle things well for Regulars, but given the examples identified by reservists on this thread (remember, One Army!), do you think anyone can insist that APC are anything other than a bottom-ranked performer when benchmarked against UK industry?

How else to describe "incompetence that stretches over decades"?

More importantly, how should we react to any currently-serving senior officers who insist that APC is doing well - are they ignorant, delusional, or mendacious (see: apathy and dishonesty)?
Rolls-Royce have a spectacularly poor HR system, although that has more to do with centralisation into a remote call-centre, ensuring you never speak to the same person twice and whoever you get next is at the mercy of whatever notes were (possibly) left by the last person you spoke to.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
S of S appears to be fascinated by the Turkish armed drones/loitering munitions used extensively by Azerbaijan. The tech for those is pretty simple and is created by a NATO partner. How long do we think it'd take us to bring those into service if we made the decision to procure them today? 5 years? 10?
You know things are going well when the tacit assessment of our equipment modernisation is: "we're somewhere behind Azerbaijan".
 
You know things are going well when the tacit assessment of our equipment modernisation is: "we're somewhere behind Azerbaijan".
given that blokes on moped in flip-flops fixed us for a decade and a half, I'd say we've made massive progress to aspire to emulate the Aziris
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
given that blokes on moped in flip-flops fixed us for a decade and a half, I'd say we've made massive progress to aspire to emulate the Aziris
It’s what happens when you fight insurgencies/ terrorists/ freedom fighters. It’s asymmetry so it always makes them look good and us bad. Trying to equate the requirements of CI warfare whilst taking capability holidays for peer/near peer operations led us to where we are.

I doubt we could have afforded any other way and in the end we have done both badly.
 
It’s what happens when you fight insurgencies/ terrorists/ freedom fighters. It’s asymmetry so it always makes them look good and us bad. Trying to equate the requirements of CI warfare whilst taking capability holidays for peer/near peer operations led us to where we are.

I doubt we could have afforded any other way and in the end we have done both badly.
More fundamentally regular force has never defeated an insurgency. I'm more sure why we thought recent operations would be different.
 
More fundamentally regular force has never defeated an insurgency. I'm more sure why we thought recent operations would be different.
Massive disagree. Vietnam was predominantly a political loss, not a military loss. The Tet Offensive of 1968 destroyed the Viet Cong. After that failure the US Armed Forces were fighting North Vietnamese regulars with a thin scattering of VC regulars. What went wrong is the moron in charge had over egged the winning before the Tet Offensive and after that massive intelligence and political failure there was no chance of recovering the political war
 
Massive disagree. Vietnam was predominantly a political loss, not a military loss. The Tet Offensive of 1968 destroyed the Viet Cong. After that failure the US Armed Forces were fighting North Vietnamese regulars with a thin scattering of VC regulars. What went wrong is the moron in charge had over egged the winning before the Tet Offensive and after that massive intelligence and political failure there was no chance of recovering the political war
And therein lies the problem - not an issue of military force, but political will.
 
Massive disagree. Vietnam was predominantly a political loss, not a military loss. The Tet Offensive of 1968 destroyed the Viet Cong. After that failure the US Armed Forces were fighting North Vietnamese regulars with a thin scattering of VC regulars. What went wrong is the moron in charge had over egged the winning before the Tet Offensive and after that massive intelligence and political failure there was no chance of recovering the political war
But not a political loss in that the feared ‘domino effect’ of other SE Asian countries falling to communism didn’t happen!

So perhaps a political win and a military loss?
 

Latest Threads

Top